101 Comments

1. richard mcenroe:

Roger ó I think I just heard Kos Moulitsas just had multiple orgasms (that or someone goosed a hamster).

You just made his weekend. *g*

Feb 18, 2005 - 9:32 pm 2. Kyda Sylvester:

Well, Roger, that was a great story. I remember Fitzwater well–he was a good ole boy (no doubt still is).

In an administration replete with smarmy characters, Sidney Blumenthal was the oiliest. I always felt a slight shudder of revulsion whenever he’d appear.

Feb 18, 2005 - 9:46 pm 3. Morgan:

I don’t even know what the problem is here – that this Gannon guy got in without being a “real” journalist? That he asked softball questions? Big deal. I say fill the room with fake journalists – we might get better reporting.

I know some people are saying that he outed Plame, but I haven’t seen any evidence at all, and frankly it seems unlikely that classified information would have been leaked to a joker like Gannon. And then he called Judith Miller and Robert Novak?

So, can someone explain what the big deal is supposed to be here? I just can’t get inside Kos’s head.

Feb 18, 2005 - 10:02 pm 4. Manco_Dollars:

>So, can someone explain what the big deal is supposed to be here? I just can’t get inside Kos’s head.

Feb 18, 2005 - 10:13 pm 5. richard mcenroe:

Manco_Dollars — The big deal is, Kos and the lefties had to catch someone, anyone, even if they had to make an offense up. The Plame investigation was pretty much the only witch hunt they still had open, so they had to shoehorn it in.

As for their leering, salacious hypocritical obsession with the allegations that “Gannon” was a gay hooker, part of it is that, being good little progressives and therefore incapable of learning a damned thing, they still don’t realize from the debates that accusing a Republican of being somewhere near a gay doesn’t cause his voters to run away screaming. The other part of it is, that being good little progressives and therefore incapable of change, they still believe that Bush is a booze-addled cokehead who personally ordered the “tortures” at Abu Ghraib. By adding the insinuation that the halls of the White House are running brown with buggery, they think they’ve picked the trifecta ÔøΩ rum, sodomy and the lash!

The only trouble with that ploy is that it means instead of electing just another Yalie, we elected THIS. How cool is that?

Feb 18, 2005 - 10:45 pm 6. OJ:

That is indeed a good story Roger.

I cannot but help to note the comment about the better seats, in the press room and on the airplane. Some of the same chracteristics that you observed during your brief stint with the press corps are driving fundamentals of human nature.

As soon as you have a group, associated by a common thread, you will have ‘rank’. Call it a cast system if you will. Beyond this, you will see a ‘I am part of the group – you are not’ phenomenon as well as a ‘us versus them’ group mentality between participating ‘clicks’ in the included group.

I am certainly no psychologist but I believe these characteristics govern modern politics as well as its media coverage, world wide. I know you know it governs the local water cooler.

It is a human trait and sadly one that we will probably never escape.

OJ

http://www.RightViews.com

Feb 18, 2005 - 11:08 pm 7. Dishman:

OJ, I agree with your assessment about the process, though not how to address it.

For me, it’s like any other aspect of human nature.. acknowledge it, understand its strengths, weaknesses and boundaries.

Feb 18, 2005 - 11:18 pm 8. Darleen:

I think what annoys me most about this l’affaire de Gannon outside some of the nastiest gay-bashing I’ve seen outside of Fred Phelps poisoned sphere is that some of the histrionics from the usual Left suspects makes you wonder if they read their own writings.

I mean… are they really advocating a huge new restriction on who gets into White House press conferences… with vetting by the FBI (and how far do we take these ‘investigations …IRS? Credit Agencies? Ex-spouses and ex-lovers?) or only those “reporters” who can prove their “journalistic” bonafides with a likewise “approved” news organization? According to whom? And to whose advantage?

And what’s with the “How can a White House that talks about ‘family values’ allow a gay prostitute in there”…. they want the WH to clear the press room of anyone that disagrees with WH values? or is gay? or may be a promiscuous gay? (if he doesn’t have a rap sheet, I’d refrain from calling him a ‘prostitute’)

This is not a Lefty blog investigation…this is a Monty Python “no one ever expects the Spanish Inquisition” routine. Absurd, bullying, depraved and just downright indecent.

Feb 18, 2005 - 11:51 pm 9. Dishman:

I think Roger’s correctly identified the one angle where we’d care… if Gannon/Guckert was a deliberate plant. Then it would be a matter of full disclosure. If he was a plant, and identified himself as working for the White House when he asked questions, it would be a little strange (ok, a lot strange) but I’d be ok with it.

I’m with Glenn Reynolds on the alleged prostitution angle – I favor legalization. Don’t expect me to get too upset about something I think should be legal.

As for White House vetting reporters, Morgan and Darleen’s points ring true. We really don’t want to go there, especially not as bloggers… something about not excreting and ingesting at the same location.

In fact, it’d be a pretty cool angle for any bloggers who could get a press pass…

Feb 19, 2005 - 1:32 am 10. Gerard Van der Leun:

Seems to me the problem here is scalp envy. Only problem is they’ve picked a a guy with a shaved head and a body wax.

Feb 19, 2005 - 2:13 am 11. Rick Ballard:

“I just can’t get inside Kos’s head.”

Morgan,

Perhaps a simple illustrated description will be helpful. I believe that his anaerobic process is not completely functional. That would explain the quality of output. It also explains the nature of the “technical services” that he provides. Surprising that he doesn’t advertise as “all natural”.

Feb 19, 2005 - 4:24 am 12. Steve J.:

For those of you who seemed baffled by this story, let me give a few details.

Gannon worked for Bobby Eberle, who is a major Republican oprative in Texas. Suddenly, the Republican Party in Texas never heard of Eberle:

“Several local Republican elected officials did not return phone calls regarding Eberle. “I’m not going to comment because I don’t know him, and nobody here does,” said Sherry Sylvester, a spokeswoman for the Republican Party of Texas, when asked about Eberle.” Link

Think they are scared of something?

On the Plame controversy, Gannon claimed that he had been subpoenaed to appear before the Grand Jury Link but later denied that.Link

Gannon claimed not to know anything about GOPUSA yet he was first admitted to the WH press room as a reporter for GOPUSA.

Feb 19, 2005 - 5:03 am 13. swervin:

I think the real story of this faux scandal is the handling of it by various media types.

On the Daily Show they covered Gannon, showed screen caps of the escort website and quoted from his profile about his “8 plus inches uncut”. To top of the piece Stewart ended with the line “It’s not gay if you’re the man” referring to Guckert only offering services as a top.

This sort of humor seems very un-progressive, and bigotted. The left seems to think that Gannon/Guckert is a way to shame Republicans and it is the favorite cri d’guerre for lefty trolls at this moment.

The second TV personality to attack Guckert was Anderson Cooper who had him on his show Friday and interviewed him very aggressively. This is from the rush transcript on CNN.com

“COOPER: Your critics bring up your past, that whether or not you did work as an escort as going to your credibility, that you know, should somebody who perhaps was working as an escort was getting access to the White House and being passed along through the Secret Service. Was your employer aware of your past activities?”

The wording of that question and the dwelling on the word escort made me cringe. If Guckert was more savvy or confrontational he would have side-stepped Cooper’s question with questions of his own regarding rumors of Cooper’s orientation or even teased him about wanting the services of a discrete male escort.

The left is attempting to manufacture a firestorm regarding a non-issue and I think the MSM is using Guckert to de-legitimize non accredited reporters in an attempt to smear right leaning media and bloggers in general.

Feb 19, 2005 - 5:23 am 14. Richard Nieporent:

I am afraid they caught us red-handed and I no alternative but to confess. Yes, you exposed our top secret agent X23Y2Z. We thought we had given him the perfect cover. With his special background we were certain that he would fit in well with the rest of the press. What we failed to understand is that no “real” member of the MSM would ever ask a question that is favorable to the President. I guess we will just have to settle for getting Dan Rather and Eason Jordon, while you got our top operative. C’est la vie.

Feb 19, 2005 - 6:21 am 15. alcibiades:

Richard has an excellent point. We forgot to train our agent to ask only critical questions. Because otherwise members of the MSM can tell he is not in lockstep with them — and hence, spot a plant. Anyone who survived journalism school would not possibly be soft on GWB.

The scary bit, to me, is not how Guckert got in. From what I’ve seen and heard there are plenty of fruit cakes in the WH press office. Instead, it’s that a raving lunactic like Sid Blumenthal once was regarded as an ordinary member of an administration. The guy’s a raving loon.

Feb 19, 2005 - 6:58 am 16. David Thomson:

We should be celebrating the fact that the Old media is obsessed by the silly Gannon/Guckert Affair. This shows just how desperate they are to find any dirt whatsoever on the Bush administration. This make believe scandal wouldnít even have made the back pages if there was anything like Watergate to reveal.

Feb 19, 2005 - 7:56 am 17. ahem:

I think Swervin’s got it right; it’s an attempt to de-legitimize non-accredited reporters. Funny, how in doing so, the ‘progressives’ reveal a surprising – but very real – homophobia. Just like the very real racism that’s bubbled to the surface since Rice has become successful. It only confirms the view that the Democratic party is merely a collection of disparate groups pushing incompatible agendas, unified only by an object of hate.

Incidentally, Roger, what color boxers are you wearing today?

Feb 19, 2005 - 8:19 am 18. Ben:

So, under what set of rigorous criteria does Helen Thomas get to become an honored member of the elite WH Press Corps?

Feb 19, 2005 - 8:45 am 19. Kevin P:

Steve J.

You just keep digging. Go to your local gay porn shop and rent every tape, maybe you will find a loop with Gannon and Rove. Find out Gannons school transcripts, maybe he is a cheat too. Travel to Texas and find out how many Republican Conventions he went to and find out how much money he gave to the party. Maybe you can become the go to web site on everything you wanted to know about Gannon but were afraid to ask. I am sure that Gannongate will join Iran Contra and the teapot dome scandal as one of the greatest scandals in the history of this country. The fact that a GAY man with loose morals was let into the holy sanctum of the White House press room and possibly may have been planted by the White House to, oh my God I can hardly speak the words, ask softball questions is one of the greatest crimes in the history of the world. Forget the oil for food scandal, everything should be dropped and a massive congressional investigation should be started. Contact Barbara Boxer, I am sure she will head it up for you. Meanwhile the rest of us in the real world will continue to get up everyday and live lives of quiet desperastion until the fruits of your nobel quest for the truth is finally revealed. You go guy!

Feb 19, 2005 - 8:49 am 20. richard mcenroe:

Ben ó Well they dug her up when they were installing that pool in the White House Basement way back when, so she was there first… I think that gives her a sort of “grandfather clause” exemption from any competency requirements…

Feb 19, 2005 - 9:39 am 21. richard mcenroe:

Steve J misses the most important part of this scandal ó The Republicans have to pay people to lob them softball questions, The Democrats get Tim Russell and Katie Couric for free…

Feb 19, 2005 - 9:40 am 22. Rick Ballard:

David,

You touch on an interesting point. Just seeing Slimey Sid’s name brings back memories of the sickly sweet smell of corruption that overhung Washington from Travelgate through Marc Rich. The press corpse must be starved to emaciation on the thin gruel of scandal offered by this administration. I can’t think of a single official who has been indicted.

The funniest thing to date in all this is the fact that the Plame affair will result in a couple of reporters winding up in jail with the press shield shattered (rightfully) on the floor in front of them. I can’t wait to see Fitzgerald accused of a coverup when he announces that no charges can be brought due to the narrowness of the statute.

Feb 19, 2005 - 9:49 am 23. Katherine:

The more I think about it the more I am convinced that Clinton is possibly one luckiest man in the human history. Blogosphere came into being mere months after he left the office. What a close shave.

Feb 19, 2005 - 10:08 am 24. charlotte:

I’d certainly not take the word of Kos and MSM hacks that Gannon is gay or ever received money for services, but even if he were either, the forced outing and smear campaign by so-called liberals is typically beyond the pale. I’m beginning to think this Gannon business isn’t just a case of manufactured outrage over a relatively unknown man asking a softball question to the President at a press conference instead of snarling and spitting at him as all of the politically correct journos do. The Party of Diversity honestly hates gay Republicans. And black conservatives. And Hispanic Bush supporters. And Jewish independents and neo-cons. DNC Chairman Delightful Dean hates ALL Republicans.

And now the party may be losing its stranglehold on prostitutes . Its constituents are running off faster than can be insulted and whipped back in line, and the party is in a rage.

Feb 19, 2005 - 10:12 am 25. ed:

Hmmm.

I have to ask:

What does the gay community think of all this?

Frankly the amount of abuse being heaped on Guckert’s head is rather similar to the abuse being directed at Condi Rice. Just another individual who made the terrible error of getting off the reservation. If Guckert was a liberal Democrat, he’d be signing an employment contract with CBS.

also…

Personally I think a major portion of this entire affair is an attempt by the MSM to redefine journalists. Currently there isn’t a real definition other than by employment. I.e. if you’re employed as a journalist, then you are one. But if other factors are added in such as education, history, employer and a host of other factors, then a very legal restriction can be emplaced.

An example of this is already a fundamental part of Washington where a White House “hard pass” requires not just a FBI background check but also approval from an established board of journalists. For access to Congress approval is also needed from yet another board of journalists.

By changing the definition of what is a journalist, the MSM can acquire leverage against blogs. You can see this easily. Just look around and read comments by liberals who are defending the assault on Guckert. Many name his qualifications and then proceed to list the qualifications they believe are necessary. Topping the list is “education”.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t Columbia about as left-wing as you can possibly get outside of Moscow? Aren’t most, if not all, journalism schools very hard left?

Feb 19, 2005 - 10:17 am 26. Dishman:

An interesting take from the White House press corps on the topic (via Glenn).

Feb 19, 2005 - 10:22 am 27. Katherine:

Fine. Let reserve an august title of ìa journalistî to the graduates of journo schools. Let them even establish a Journalistic Board that issues credentials and certifies that an individual is allow to practice ì journalismî (and how about a state license?).

However, writing pamphlets is another matter ñ everybody can do it. Blogs are nothing but modern version of that venerable and ancient art. If I recall, pamphlets were quite instrumental in bringing down the French monarchy. And Federalist Papers are really nothing more than a collection of pamphlets.

ìIf itís war they want, the war they’ll get. Showtimeî

Feb 19, 2005 - 10:31 am 28. David Thomson:

ìThe funniest thing to date in all this is the fact that the Plame affair will result in a couple of reporters winding up in jail with the press shield shattered (rightfully) on the floor in front of them.î

The law pertaining to the Plame affair was very specifically written to deal only with traitors like Philip Agee. It was not created to punish those who merely blurt out a fact that virtually everyone in Washington, DC knew about Valerie Plame. She was almost certainly not an active secret agent! Common sense dictates that the CIA would have pulled her out of danger after she married a high profile diplomat. Thus, no laws were broken.

Investigations like this one continue on to the bitter end—even if they make no sense whatsoever. Itís called CYA. You donít want a Ted Kennedy blasting you for not following all the leads. Long ago, I cynically concluded that the investigators probably have to get drunk every night. Can you imagine what it must be like to have your time wasted on this sort of nonsense?

Feb 19, 2005 - 10:38 am 29. Kyda Sylvester:

Roger, will you be telling us in your book how one’s politics can be “somewhere to the left of Michael Moore’s” while at the same time “more knowledgeable”? I’m teasing, but it’s a serious question.

Feb 19, 2005 - 11:11 am 30. Roger:

Yes, Kyda, all that and MORE!… or should I say Moore?

Feb 19, 2005 - 11:19 am 31. Beldar:

Good story, Roger. Much more interesting to me, in fact, than the Gannon “scandal.”

Feb 19, 2005 - 11:20 am 32. DCanalyst:

Isn’t it likely that the real goal of the lefty and press frenzy over Gannon/Guckert is to put ALL reporters — from all media outlets — on notice that if they dare to break with the gaggle and ask a question that could be remotely construed as “friendly” to the Administration, they’ll be Gannon-ed (Guckerted??)?

I suspect the MSM press corps are anxious to intimidate anyone who might consider asking questions that would come at things enough from the other side that the biases of their own questions would be made that much more obvious and their attempts to gang up on the President that much harder (e.g., someone actually NOT asking Bush what mistakes he’s made when the rest of the press orchestrate a whole press conference around this meme).

They’re letting the lefty bloggers do their dirty work in this, but I bet the White House press corps are delighted that this “warning” has been put out so effectively.

Feb 19, 2005 - 11:30 am 33. Rick Ballard:

Yes, Kyda, all that and MORE!…

Ya’know, a real teaser would have an excerpt. Or at least a foto of your frayed copy of ‘Thoughts of Chairman Mao’ laying on a BC04 lawn poster.

Feb 19, 2005 - 11:31 am 34. Tim:

Hmmm, just as mentally compromised folks with inordinately short attention spans are easily distracted by bright, shiny objects, so too is the left blogosphere by Gannon/Guckert.

Those of us supporting the Bush Administration should encourage them to “throw us in that briar patch.”

The only real issue is did the WH plant Gannon/Guckert to have him ask friendly and leading questions or not? Even if they did, does it really matter? Does anyone really think Gannon/Guckert asking friendly or leading questions all by his lonesome could effectively stand against the MSM tide at WH press briefings like some King Canute? Get real. Everything else is, if you’ll excuse the term, fluff.

Feb 19, 2005 - 11:35 am 35. Terrye:

Years ago when I was in WIFE [Women Involved in Farm Economics] I took a trip to DC and went just about everywhere, including the cafeteria in the Senate office building. I met Helen Thomas and while I realize that things have changed a lot in 18 years it was not that big a deal to get close to people.

But as far as the Gunner thing is concerned I think that watching these idiots jump on this man like vultures on road kill says a lot more about them than it does about him. As far as I know he has done them no harm, so why not leave him alone instead of trashing him and accusing him of all kinds of crap for which they have no evidence.

And I think that if the traitors who have been leaking classified information from the CIA for the purpose of damaging the Bush administration can get their info published in papers like the WaPo and the NYT then some of these high and mighty journalists and their fan club should rethink their own sorry lack of ethics before they judge someone else. hypocrites.

Feb 19, 2005 - 11:37 am 36. charlotte:

DCanalyst is right. Just think. The center to right blogosphere brought down news anchor Dan Rather who brandished forged documents to damn a sitting President during an election campaign (and in coordination with the Fortunate Son campaign of the DNC, perhaps). The center to right blogosphere helped bring down the senior news executive at CNN when he tried damning the US military as murderers in an influential international forum (although I’m convinced CNN cut him loose fast because there’s more to this story than we know).

And all the left blogosphere and MSM can do is publicly and personally humiliate a WH reporter, who may be gay and who may have had some past porn business associations, because he threw softball questions to the Prez during press conferences? Naturally, the traditional press is outraged that a journalist be defined downward as someone who doesn’t lie or defame this administration. It has standards, you know.

Feb 19, 2005 - 11:37 am 37. richard mcenroe:

The “gay community”, by which I take it you mean the usual “spokesmen” the media turns to to represent such a diverse body, will remain silent in servile obedience to their Democratic handlers…

Feb 19, 2005 - 11:38 am 38. ed:

Hmmm.

“The “gay community”, by which I take it you mean the usual “spokesmen” the media turns to to represent such a diverse body, will remain silent in servile obedience to their Democratic handlers…”

No. I actually mean the regular folks that comprise that community. Which I’ll agree are usually far removed from the more vocal elements.

It’s a strange and crazy world. If someone told me twenty years ago that:

People would pay $2 for bottles of water.

People would pay $6 for a cup of coffee.

Democrats would complain about the federal deficit and excessive spending.

Al Sharpton was a candidate for the President of the United States of America.

And Vermont (!!) would be the cornerstone of liberalism.

I’d have laughed at them and called the police to have them committed into an institution.

Feb 19, 2005 - 11:57 am 39. pawsr:

The problem is that this individual doesn’t represent our ideals, unless we have widened our tent to include gay prostitutes.

And yes he may not have a police record but his bio on militarystud.com states that he costs 200.00/hour and 1200.00/weekend. There is also 43 nude pictures of him, some of them showing him urinating-not exactly in line with our family values.

Also, the fact that someone like this wasn’t given a thorough background check is alarming.

I don’t mind the questions he asked or his lack of “journalistic” experience.

We don’t want some crazy to get into the white house and who knows what.

Also, the hypocrisy is a little alarming. He has written blatenly homophobic articles while renting himself out as a gay prostitute. Also, being a prostitute is illegal in DC if that matters.

Also, one of his ads is still up on with his rates and his sexual interest-top CUT by the way, not uncut.

If we are ok with someone like this representing our interests all the more power to us. I just didn’t realize that we decided to be more tolerant.

And lets be honest if this happened during the Clinton administration we would of been at the White House gates with torches wielding guns.

Feb 19, 2005 - 12:28 pm 40. Rick Ballard:

pawser

That’s pronounced pos-er, right?

Don’t you have Little League practice today?

Feb 19, 2005 - 12:35 pm 41. Roberts:

Pawser, you just don’t realize how silly you are. A “thorough” background check? Why? To protect Dan Rather from high rates? Don’t you have any clue just how dangerous excessive background checks are? Why do you think the Clinton White House’s thugs found all those records from Secret Service background checks so valuable?

A lack of “journalistic” experience? Yeah, he wasn’t as experienced as people like Mary Mapes/Dan Rather who knowingly provide forged documents to attempt to influence a Presidential election.

It is a shame that everyone who is pushing this issue doesn’t grow up.

Feb 19, 2005 - 12:39 pm 42. pawsr:

Roberts are you saying there shouldn’t be any background checks? My comment was just to state that if something like this may have been completed on Gannan we could of aleviated this problem. If you are ok with letting anyone in go for it. I didn’t realize this made me immature by stating this point. Also, my comment regarding journalistic experience was that I really didn’t care how that was determined.

You don’t have to be so mean.

My point was that someone with this reckless lifestyle does not represent our greater interests and with all of the publicity only hurts our cause. I am supportive of family values and not the values of a journalist who was a gay prostitute on the side (200/hour, 1200/weekend). Also, like I stated prostitution today is illegal in DC. Doesn’t anyone have any problems with this? I guess the party that I support is becoming incredibly progressive.

Feb 19, 2005 - 12:50 pm 43. Roberts:

Actually, you want to see hypocrisy? Find how often articles like Sid’s are published as opeds in leftist weekly papers that depend upon advertising revenues from escort services.

Feb 19, 2005 - 12:50 pm 44. Roberts:

Pawsr, evidently you are ignorant that there are different levels of background checks. You are clearly ignorant of why requiring excessive background checks can be harmful.

The White House works on several levels of security.

And yes, I have to be so mean. Its in my contract.

Feb 19, 2005 - 12:53 pm 45. papertiger:

Has anyone checked into Dan Rathers sexual preferences lately? Lets get the FBI mobilized.

I for one would welcome more information on Maureen Dowd’s clubbing habits.

Feb 19, 2005 - 12:53 pm 46. Morgan:

pawsr:

You aren’t fooling anyone, you know.

Steve J:

I’m still not getting it. So the big deal is that people somewhere are saying that they don’t know someone (”a Republican operative”) who once employed Gannon?

Or is it that that Gannon claimed to have been called before the Grand Jury, and later claimed that he had not been called?

Or is it that Gannon (falsely?) denied a connection with GOPUSA?

All of which amounts to what? A chronic liar whose recently revealed sordid history makes people want to distance themselves from him?

Is it just that you smell smoke, and where there is smoke there is fire?

Connect the dots for me here. What am I missing?

Feb 19, 2005 - 12:54 pm 47. BobT:

IMO it’s near impossible for any presidency to avoid any and all “scandal”. Knowing what we know now, I certainly don’t think this is it for GWB. So what will GWB’s “scandal” be? Was it the “lies” about Iraq intel, and the “scandal” is over?

And I concur with those who see this as the opening salvo of the MSM to put (keep?) the blogosphere in its box. Not sure it’ll matter much though, as the blogs have done alright for themselves not being part of the official Press Corpse (I like that typo).

Would the blogs be as effective if they were “inside” anyway? Seems to me, much of the credibility comes from the fact they are “outside”.

Feb 19, 2005 - 12:55 pm 48. pawsr:

Actually Roberts I am not deeply ignorant regarding background checks. I work for a company that completes background checks for large employers. And I realize very well the many types of background checks that can be completed by employers, including education, criminal, work history, credit, security. Depending on the type of background checks these can be completed on an individual within 3-7 days. Depending on the type of background check you complete the cost is 25.00/250.00. The individual who is having a background check completed on them completes education, criminal, credit etc. and signs it and states that it is truthful.

Since 9/11 the background check industry has boomed as a result of wanting to make sure individuals are who they say they are. Currently a majority of the large employers complete background checks on all employees, specifically financial services companies, pharmaceutical, biotech, banking and healthcare.

The 16% of all backgrounds we completed result in someone lieing, either about criminal record, education record (degree attained) or work history.

Let’s all be friends and get (behind) Gannon. How dare we speak badly about him.

I am your friend Roger and will do whatever I can to speak out about the injustice of a gay prostitute (200/hour, 1200/weekend-top, cut)

Feb 19, 2005 - 1:02 pm 49. Rick Ballard:

only hurts our cause

Are you preaching at the First Assembly of Dimwits tomorrow?

And yes, I do have a right thick mean streak in my responses to trolls. It gets worse as time goes on, too. And if I show signs of weakening someone else will pop you in the toaster and toss it in a tub full of water. Won’t ask where you’re from kos I just don’t want to know. But you might work on strengthening your game a bit before playing here.

Feb 19, 2005 - 1:04 pm 50. pawsr:

I’m scared and leaving. I have to head to Bigram Yoga-gonna sweat my butt off.

And I never thought of my self as ignorant. If working on wall street, making over 600,000 this past year, living in a 2,000,000 loft in soho (how gay), having a killer body, makes me ignorant I’m sorry.

Also, BA Harvard, MBA Tuck!!!

I gotta go stregthen my game before playing here,

You forgot to snap your fingers after you said that… Mary

Feb 19, 2005 - 1:09 pm 51. Roberts:

Pawsr, your little snide “Let’s all be friends and get (behind) Gannon. How dare we speak badly about him.” is really a lie. Roger is not “behind” Guckert, nor am I. In fact, I have not seen anyone who is “behind” Guckert at all.

We don’t care. The story is meaningless. Get it? We don’t care.

That you can’t tell the difference tells us more about you. You are a dishonest but not very competent troll.

Feb 19, 2005 - 1:12 pm 52. Morgan:

pawsr may have been the goofiest troll ever.

Excellent toss, Rick.

Feb 19, 2005 - 1:13 pm 53. kynna:

Grow up Pawsr. Nobody in the WH press corps represents my views, values or opinions. I do that for myself.

This is a trumped up story. Just like the Nat. Guard story, the left thinks they have something on the administration and they build a mountain out of a molehill (or as in the TANG even less than a molehill!). Doesn’t make me a hypocrite to see through their motives.

As far as Gannon is concerned, I don’t know anything about him. You seem to be quite familiar with his site, so thanks for making it unnecessary for me to look at it. You do a great service.

If he asked softball questions then again, I see no problem. He is but one of many in the room and most are pit bulls where this president is concerned.

Feb 19, 2005 - 1:13 pm 54. Terrye:

pawsr:

Maybe we should do a background check on you, after all I don’t know if you are [wink] one of us.

Just think if the DNC had done a background check on Bill Clinton’s sexual history he might not have become president.

This man has done you no harm. He has admitted past mistakes and if he had accused the president of lying the left would have made a cult hero out of him even if he were caught in compromising photos with farm animals.

This is a non story. Leave the man alone. There are too many goofballs that call themselves journalists to ever think you can weed people out and if the White House tried somebody would just bitch about it anyway.

Feb 19, 2005 - 1:21 pm 55. Morgan:

Terrye:

Too late, I fear. pawsr has gone off to Bigram-Yoga, and will pay for it out of the $600,000 salary he/she receives for doing background checks on Wall Street.

Feb 19, 2005 - 1:24 pm 56. Rick Ballard:

Morgan,

Roger linked to a Jeff Goldstein piece that adrresses the six degrees of separation logic being used on this story. Steve J is still trying to find a straight edge to connect the dots (well, since there are more than two, he may be at an impasse).

Feb 19, 2005 - 1:54 pm 57. Wave Maker:

Strip away (sorry) the prurient aspect of this embarrassing mess, and you have a story only if it is about the White House planting a bogus person with bogus a name to ask bogus questions. If that claim has validity, the story has legs — and it should, just as Armstrong Williams’ paid editorials did. If it has no validity, ask Barney Frank to defend poor Jeff.

The White House’s “background check” issue is embarrassing only if it was complicit in planting the guy in the first place. In that case, it’s a monumental blunder, for which some heads should roll. I can’t imagine such incompetence, myself — surely someone could have done a better job of selecting a shill — and why would they believe was necessary in the first place? The Daily Briefing? Come on.

Feb 19, 2005 - 3:11 pm 58. RogerA:

Count me among the unimpressed with this story–(1) who thinks the white house press corps is even relevant? a baying pack of moonbats that the President has marginalized by going to the people, fox news, and other outlets (2) so Gannon is a male prostitute? I am a devout heterosexual but also a libertarian; what people do with respect their sexuality is their business (although I do hope they are practicing safe sex) (3) this whole incident smacks to me of trying to embarass this personal scandal free administration through the device of guilt by association; unfortunately for the left, this president, unlike more a more recent edition is not apparently a libertine–good luck on finding some scandal dog that will hunt (4) finally, isnt North Korea, a democratic middle east, a free Iran somehow a more important story for the idiots; e.g. Helen Thomas and her ilk, in the white house press corps to pursue? (5) as a matter of information, this gannon story has not even made any of the eastern washington papers–I doubt that most americans have the remotest idea about it.

Katherine: you used the term journo schools–did you mean porno schools?

Feb 19, 2005 - 3:44 pm 59. Katherine:

RogerA,

It was a lapsus calamiÖ

Feb 19, 2005 - 3:50 pm 60. RogerA:

Katherine (and PLEASE dont hit me for this): does a lapsus calami mean outdated squid?

Feb 19, 2005 - 3:59 pm 61. PeterUK:

Why the furore about Gannon in the press room when Yasser Arafat was allowed in the bedrooms? Incidentally did you ever get the towels back?

Feb 19, 2005 - 4:05 pm 62. Kevin P:

Roger:

Lets take the worst case scenarios. They let a male prostitute into the White House press room. Tacky but hardly a security threat. Last time I checked the number of male prostitute suicide bombings is very low. They let a non journalist into the White House press room to ask softball questions. Since our presidential candidates spend more time on the fake news shows, Larry King,and Oprah instead of in front of competent journalists the integrity of the press corps are hardly threatened by some lame planted questions from Gannon. A partisan in the press corp. Since Russert, Steph, Mathews,Blumenthal, all went directly from their Democratic politician jobs to the press corps the number of softball questions from the press on the democratic side is hardly overwhelmed by questions from Gannon. I understand why Stewart, Leno, and Letterman are focusing on this because it is funny but the hand wringing and wailing by the fever swamp that is trying to turn this into a scandal is really pathetic. While they are focusing on this kerfuffle the rest of the grown ups will concentrate on Social Security, the war, and foreign policy. Hey, Gannon is from Texas, maybe he has a connection to the JFK assasination. Steven, you should track this down, you never know what you might find.

Feb 19, 2005 - 4:10 pm 63. Dishman:

Hey, Gannon is from Texas, maybe he has a connection to the JFK assasination.

Yes, yes, I was there, I saw them… Guckert and Zuniga, on the grassy knoll…

(disclosure, I was born in the month JFK’s MotM goal was realized)

Feb 19, 2005 - 4:30 pm 64. Katherine:

RogerA,

LOL! I merely meant a slip of the penÖ But I like your meaning better!

Feb 19, 2005 - 4:38 pm 65. Katherine:

Gannon is from Texas?Ö

Has anyone considered yet that Lucy Ramirez is Gannon in a drag? It all fits, you see: Gannon was hired by Rove, posed as Lucy Ramirez and fed forgeries to unsuspecting Burkitt in order to frame Dan Rather. Open your eyes to the truth, people!!!!!

I think it is time to buy some aluminum futures.

Feb 19, 2005 - 4:47 pm 66. Terrye:

And let us not forget that John Wayne Gacey had his picture taken with Rosalyn Carter.

I suppose we are expected to believe that the Carters knew nothing of the bodies in the crawl space. Likely story.

This is catching.

Feb 19, 2005 - 4:56 pm 67. exguru:

It seems to me at one time I heard Larry King described as a “Kennedy stringer.” That was long ago when he was always at the race track.

Feb 19, 2005 - 5:10 pm 68. Dishman:

C’mon, Terrye, it’s not like Carter ever coddled murderers…

while he was in office…

or after…

Feb 19, 2005 - 5:12 pm 69. Terrye:

Dishman:

Check out littlegreenfootballs. They have some links to some really hilarious conspiracy theories.

Hilarious or spooky, depending on how you look at it.

Feb 19, 2005 - 5:50 pm 70. Pat Curley:

I’ve been enjoying this story, partially because my post on it about 10 days ago got me an Instalink (plus links from about 16 other blogs)

I don’t think there’s any real logic to the crusade against Gannon, other than that his gay escort-related websites happened to be the string they found to pull on. They’ve tried to justify it on the basis that “How could a gay hooker get within 20 feet of the President?” without apparently considering the privacy invasion that would be required to prevent such an occurence. They’ve tried “It’s the hypocrisy” claiming that an article Gannon wrote about Kerry being the first gay President was somehow hateful.

At the end of the day, though, they’re left with nude photos and a couple websites. Pardon us if we’re unimpressed.

Feb 19, 2005 - 6:52 pm 71. Bruce W.:

Rick B and ROberts: That was some fine troll slapping. And either I am a bit slow today or you are astute (bit of both, I think) because I was not 100% sure he or she was asking for it until the pathetic disclosure of salary and housing costs came across. How lame.

A liberal making $600K a year? Maybe it was just Kerry being modest…

Feb 19, 2005 - 7:08 pm 72. heather:

Maybe all this chatter about Gannon is really about: SEX. It’s Abu Ghraib all over again… the big “respectable” MSM has a license to picture sex, discuss sex, be outraged about sex, write about sex… and STILL BE OLYMPIAN.

In other words, I think the MSM is really ignorant of the world, with minds awash with frivolity. So, Gannon and Abu Ghraib and SEX are – to the deep thinkers – what the World is all about!

Feb 19, 2005 - 7:46 pm 73. PeterUK:

Since pawsr felt the need to mention having a killer body,without making clear to whom it belonged,perhaps he was advertising just as Gannon is alleged to have been doing.

Feb 19, 2005 - 7:47 pm 74. AlanDownunder:

“I’m everything people on the Left seem to despise. I’m a man who is white, politically conservative, a gun-owner, an SUV driver and I’ve voted for Republicans. I’m pro-American, pro-military, pro-democracy, pro-capitalism, pro-free speech, anti-tax and anti-big government. Most importantly, I’m a Christian. Not only by birth, but by rebirth through the blood of Jesus Christ.”

Unless it were divulged that the guy quoted was a gay hooker, you wouldn’t know he was no more “reborn” than the President and all those other soi-disant Christians who infest the GOP and the White House.

How is it hypocritical to identify this blasphemous hypocrisy?

Feb 19, 2005 - 8:17 pm 75. David Thomson:

ìUnless it were divulged that the guy quoted was a gay hooker, you wouldn’t know he was no more “reborn” than the President and all those other soi-disant Christians who infest the GOP and the White House.

How is it hypocritical to identify this blasphemous hypocrisy?î

I am a theological modernists who does not consider Jesus to be his lord and savior. Still, I am sufficiently knowledgeable to unhesitatingly assert that you donít know what you are talking about. The very concept of being reborn means that one has abandoned the sins of their past. It is only “blasphemous hypocrisy” if the claimed lifestyle change is insincere.

Feb 19, 2005 - 8:33 pm 76. ed:

Hmmm.

Anyone care to imagine if the Bush White House actually did any of the things the liberals are demanding?

Anyone care to imagine the outrage if the Bush White House actually declined to allow a gay *liberal* journalist access to the press room?

What nonsense.

Feb 19, 2005 - 8:36 pm 77. Roberts:

Bruce,

Thank you. After playing around in the internet and its predecessors going back to the early ’80’s, I can smell ‘em pretty fast.

Feb 19, 2005 - 9:02 pm 78. kevin:

Roger,

Was this your “Ted Hilter” confession?

The Daily Show on bloggers

(Via Danieldresner.com)

Feb 20, 2005 - 12:16 am 79. AlanDownunder:

The very concept of being reborn means that one has abandoned the sins of their past. It is only “blasphemous hypocrisy” if the claimed lifestyle change is insincere.

Exactly. Guckert has contradicted himself untold times since his identification, which post-dates any recent rebirth. Lying for the Lord? Penitence is conspicuously absent. Some other White House folks just reek of sincerity too. People need to read Di Iulio & Kuo who are fragrantly sincere and who have first-hand White House experience.

The religious right is blind to blasphemy.

Feb 20, 2005 - 3:50 am 80. jukeboxgrad:

“I can’t imagine such incompetence, myself — surely someone could have done a better job of selecting a shill”

Sure, the White House has a great track record for carefully vetting the characters it gets into bed with. Exhibit A: Bernie “Love-Shack-at-Ground-Zero” Kerik. On the contrary, being a bald guy who has trouble keeping his pants zipped up seems to be considered a prime qualification.

” …without apparently considering the privacy invasion”

It’s interesting to notice all the folks who whine that Gannon’s “privacy” was invaded. Let’s see. The guy appeared on various web sites offering services for a fee. Since when is discussing an advertisement considered an invasion of the advertiser’s privacy? Discussing business information someone cheerfully posted on the web is not an invasion of anyone’s privacy.

What’s really hysterical is the idea that there’s no story here (or the idea that the only problem is that his questions were thinly disguised partisan rhetoric). If it had been discovered that a prostitute (regardless of gender or sexual orientation) using a phony name to masquerade as a journalist had been granted daily passes to get into the Clinton White House for a couple of years, we would have seen Ken Starr spending millions to investigate. Somehow we know all about a stain on a blue dress, but we’re not supposed to be curious about whether Gannon used sexual blackmail to jump in line ahead of thousands of real journalists who would like a chance to ask the president a question during a nationally televised live press conference. Not to mention questions about his role in the Plame matter.

By the way, the issue with Gannon isn’t particularly about anything he did. It’s what the White House did. It takes a lot of gullibility to think that this character ended up there for a couple of years without a little help from people in high places.

Feb 20, 2005 - 7:06 am 81. chuck:

It takes a lot of gullibility to think that this character ended up there for a couple of years without a little help from people in high places.

Did you even read Roger’s story? I think his point was just the opposite of what you have written. Personally, I don’t want the Whitehouse strictly regulating who can take part in questions, we the people and all that.

I think it takes a lot of gullibility to think everything is a conspiracy. I think it takes a lot of wishful thinking to even believe this incident is the least bit interesting.

Feb 20, 2005 - 7:21 am 82. Morgan:

jukebox:

…we’re not supposed to be curious about whether Gannon used sexual blackmail to jump in line ahead of thousands of real journalists who would like a chance to ask the president a question during a nationally televised live press conference.

Oh, it’s blackmail. Thanks for connecting the dots for me. Who do you suppose was blackmailed?

Feb 20, 2005 - 7:31 am 83. richard mcenroe:

What I like most about this story is that it proves the Left is still working with an invalid model of their opposition ó us ó and that’s great, since that means they will never be effective.

When the K/E punks started beating on the Cheney’s-daughter-is-a-lesbian theme, we were supposed to recoil in horror, lock ourselves in our double-wides, and refuse to come out to vote. It didn’t work that way.

Now they’re shouting QUEER! at the top of their lungs; it’s supposed to make us recoil from the White House in shock and horror; it’s still not working and they still don’t get it. That’s fine with me.

What I like second-best about this story is that it proves once again that the Democrats will betray ANY of their core consituencies for an imagined short-term political gain, and they still don’t get that. They betrayed the Hispanics with their open race-baiting on Estrada; they lost a big chunk of the Hispanic vote and they don’t see the connection. In fact, they repeated it with Gonzales. They sicc’ed a Klan recruiting officer on Condi Rice, Dean makes jokes about African-American busboys, and they don’t see that they have a problem.

That’s fine by me.

Feb 20, 2005 - 7:51 am 84. Wave Maker:

Jukebox:

Um….I think you’d have to do better than to compare vetting a Cabinet Secretary to checking out the private life of every individual seeking press credentials ofor the daily briefing.

And what was your position on “Hotbottom,” the infamous “aide” to Barney frank?

Feb 20, 2005 - 8:08 am 85. Brian:

Speaking of the gay community, the Independent Gay Forum has a post about a secret tape of Bush talking about gays.

Bush appeared most worried that Christian conservatives would object to his determination not to criticize gay people. “I think he wants me to attack homosexuals,” Mr. Bush said after meeting James Robison, a prominent evangelical minister in Texas.

But Mr. Bush said he did not intend to change his position. He said he told Mr. Robison: “Look, James, I got to tell you two things right off the bat. One, I’m not going to kick gays, because I’m a sinner. How can I differentiate sin?”

And furthermore:

Later, he read aloud an aide’s report from a convention of the Christian Coalition, a conservative political group: “This crowd uses gays as the enemy. It’s hard to distinguish between fear of the homosexual political agenda and fear of homosexuality, however.”

“This is an issue I have been trying to downplay,” Mr. Bush said. “I think it is bad for Republicans to be kicking gays.”

Told that one conservative supporter was saying Mr. Bush had pledged not to hire gay people, Mr. Bush said sharply: “No, what I said was, I wouldn’t fire gays.”

Not sure if this is really relevant to the Gannon thing, but what the hey, it’s interesting.

Feb 20, 2005 - 8:21 am 86. richard mcenroe:

Jeff Jarvis has picked up on Roger’s dark admission “Fake Repporter”), and one commenter has noted a key ommission from Roger’s confession…

Feb 20, 2005 - 9:05 am 87. jukeboxgrad:

“Did you even read Roger’s story? I think his point was just the opposite of what you have written.”

You must be joking. Roger was there for a week, and asked no questions. Gannon was there for two years, and asked questions frequently, including being called on by the president during a rare nationally televised live press conference (try to imagine the total number of reporters who have ever had that experience). Roger was presumably not carrying on a secret life conducting an illegal business (illegal in most states, that is). Gannon was. Roger did not use a phony name. Gannon did. Roger had a legitimate business reason to be there. Gannon had no legitimate reason, aside from his own apparent desire to instantly launch himself to the top ranks of journalism, despite a complete absence of prior paid experience as a journalist.

Not to mention that post-9/11 it should theoretically be a teeny bit harder to get into the White House on a daily basis for a couple of years.

If you can’t discern why these differences are significant, that’s your problem.

Note that my paragraph above doesn’t mention Gannon’s sexual orientation, which is a separate matter from his business life as a prostitute. Note also that the paragraph doesn’t mention that Gannon’s “questions” had a tendency to be thinly disguised partisan rhetoric. Many righties would like to pretend that there’s nothing more to the story than the fact that Gannon is a gay conservative. They wish.

By the way, it’s not a good sign for your argument that the best you can do is try to claim that another Republican White House once sort of did the same thing Bush’s White House did (aside from the fact that it really wasn’t the same at all, as I’ve pointed out).

“Personally, I don’t want the Whitehouse strictly regulating who can take part in questions”

Then you’ll probably be upset to find out that in at least some cases it seems that the Secret Service actually performs a time-consuming background check. The nerve! How dare they! What a threat to freedom and democracy!

In fact the White House apparently feels free to inexplicably revoke press credentials even if you’ve been already been covering it for 15 years or so. I imagine this is also very upsetting to you (it is to me).

Thank goodness Gannon managed to get around all this somehow. I guess that means freedom is safe.

“I think it takes a lot of gullibility to think everything is a conspiracy.”

Until someone comes up with with a remotely plausible explanation for how this guy routinely waltzed his way ahead of thousands of journalists who’d like to be sitting in that chair, the gullibility is all yours.

“Who do you suppose was blackmailed?”

For those of use who don’t have our heads buried in the sand, that’s a question worth asking. Although I realize some people think only stains on blue dresses should make headlines.

“Now they’re shouting QUEER! at the top of their lungs”

Nice job pretending that his sexual orientation is the main issue. You wish. It’s not.

“Um….I think you’d have to do better than to compare vetting a Cabinet Secretary to checking out the private life of every individual seeking press credentials ofor the daily briefing.”

Thanks for helping me make my point. Someone had said “I can’t imagine such incompetence” (that the White House might hire a shill and not notice the skeletons in his closet). If they were so careless in failing to check out Kerik, surely they can be at least as careless in ignoring Gannon’s shady employment history.

“And what was your position on ‘Hotbottom,’ the infamous ‘aide’ to Barney frank?”

Given that a google on “barney frank hotbottom” only returns two links, both at freerepublic.com, I have to say that you’re using the word “infamous” a bit loosely.

Anyway, nice try trying to pretend it’s a story about sexual orientation. It’s not.

“I think it is bad for Republicans to be kicking gays.”

Nice to know he said that once. Too bad he changed his mind.

Feb 20, 2005 - 9:13 am 88. Morgan:

jukeboxgrad:

Now I’m confused again. Someone in the administration was blackmailed into allowing a guy whose “questions” had a tendency to be thinly disguised partisan rhetoric to take the place of a real journalist?

Feb 20, 2005 - 9:44 am 89. Rick Ballard:

Brian,

Here is a NYT article that covers those tapes. Not bad for the NYT (a bit above high school yearbook level).

The fellow who did the undisclosed taping needs his name turned into a verb or an adjective indicating untrustworthiness – weadly might work. “A weadly friend” seems almost Shakespearean.

We need some new neologisms around here (in a redundant vein). Reading the comments from the darkside the past couple of days leads me to suggest a “flummox of liberals” as being equivalent to a murder of crows.

Feb 20, 2005 - 9:56 am 90. richard mcenroe:

Morgan ó You’re confused because you’re off schedule. It’s like alternate-side-of-the street parking in NYC.

On even-numbered days, we damn the White House for being sexually blackmailed into, wait for it, letting a reporter ask questions favorable to the White House.

On odd-numbered days, it’s Nyah-Nyah, queer in the White House! Bush hangs around with gay guys, nyah-nyah!

Jukeboxgrad ó You’re kidding, right? You think we can’t read Daily Kos and his feculent forums? You think Americablog is posting pictures of Gannon’s schwaz for their aesthetic value? It’s ALL about using gays to bait the White House and absurd to pretend otherwise.

And so far, no one on the left has answered the one important question:

WHO NEEDED GANNON/GUCKERT?

Do you seriously think nobody in the White House Press Corps, with the possible exception of Helen Thomas, who wouldn’t realizes anyone was speaking to her, would refuse to ask that question if promised a fifteen-minute sit-down with the President in exchange?

What end, okay, strike that in context, what goal was served in by all these fanciful conspiracies?

Feb 20, 2005 - 10:00 am 91. Kevin P:

Roger:

I see this thread has become the open speculation without a shred of evidence thread. “It must have been sexual blackmail. This is like going into your backyard, shooting a pumpkin, and claiming that this means Vince Foster was murdered. And what is the proof. “Because I said so.” Why not make Gannon a Chinese spy too. It’s possible. Or maybe Jeff was a women before he made himself a man. Or maybe Gannon is Hilary’s lover and is a mole planted by Blumenthal. Why not. You have to admit it hasn’t been showed to be untrue so anything is possible.Moonbats of the world unite!

Feb 20, 2005 - 1:47 pm 92. Roberts:

Jukeboxgrad, you’ve been covering the blogosphere with the same ridiculous speculations sans evidence.

Your misrepresentations of what kind of background check the White House should have been making is quite indicative of the value of the rest of your nonsense. Guckert’s “shady” employment history is of marginal relevance to whether or not he posed a physical security threat to the White House. That was Talon News’ problem, not the White House – the WH wasn’t hiring him.

Its long past time for those who keep flogging this meaningless issue to grow up.

Feb 20, 2005 - 1:53 pm 93. richard mcenroe:

Dennis the Peasant does a little outing of his own. It ain’t pretty.

Feb 20, 2005 - 3:34 pm 94. jukeboxgrad:

“Now I’m confused again. Someone in the administration was blackmailed into allowing a guy whose ‘questions’ had a tendency to be thinly disguised partisan rhetoric to take the place of a real journalist?”

Nice job quoting me out of context. I realize for some people it’s a way of life. My point was that this (the fact that he asked softball questions) is one of the least salient aspects of the story. Although I realize you’d like to create the impression that it’s the whole story.

“On even-numbered days, we damn the White House for being sexually blackmailed”

Nice job pretending that you wouldn’t be screaming bloody murder if you found out a prostitute with a phony name had spent two years mysteriously wandering around the White House press room during the Clinton adminstration.

“It’s ALL about using gays to bait the White House and absurd to pretend otherwise.”

It’s true that the gay hypocrisy angle seems to give the story some extra oomph, for some people. But good luck pretending that’s all there is to it. You’ll need it.

“what goal was served in by all these fanciful conspiracies?”

Good question. I’m glad you share my curiosity. I think that one way or another we’ll find out.

“I see this thread has become the open speculation without a shred of evidence thread.”

Unlike some folks around these parts, I think I’m pretty clear about when I’m speculating and when I’m stating something that appears to be proven. The blackmail idea falls into the former category. His work as a prostitute falls into the latter category (despite ignorant denials in various places, including this thread).

“Your misrepresentations of what kind of background check the White House should have been making”

Nice job throwing rocks without being specific and without offering a shred of proof.

“Guckert’s ’shady’ employment history is of marginal relevance to whether or not he posed a physical security threat to the White House.”

The point of the background check is not just in connection with physical security. The fact that he received daily passes for a couple of years tends to indicate that either a background check wasn’t done, or that it was done and someone powerful said he should be there anyway, even though he was a hooker and a tax cheat and had virtually no journalism experience.

Lots of people find this pretty mysterious. If you don’t, that’s your problem.

“That was Talon News’ problem, not the White House – the WH wasn’t hiring him.”

Too bad Talon News didn’t even exist at the time he first showed up in the White House.

Feb 21, 2005 - 8:53 am 95. Kevin P:

jukeboxgrad:

Who was being blackmailed?, how was it done?, how long was it going on?. My guess is that you do not have a single bit of hard proof, just mindless fantasy speculation. As far as the Clinton administration the problem some people had with Clinton is that if there was a prostitute running around in the press room he would be getting blow jobs from them, probably without paying. When you have specific info, not amatuer guessing, write it up. Names, dates, amounts. Otherwise you can join the UFO, black helicopter crowd.

Feb 21, 2005 - 9:08 am 96. jukeboxgrad:

“My guess is that you do not have a single bit of hard proof”

Nice job ignoring what I said about the difference between fact and speculation. It’s a fact that a pseudononymous tax-cheating prostitute (or at best an ex-prostitute) with no prior experience as a paid journalist spent two years inside the White House press room, and was called on frequently, even though he had been formally denied regular press credentials and even though his so-called “news” organization didn’t even exist at the time he first started appearing inside the White House.

The idea that there was blackmail is speculation. Did I make that simple enough for you?

Feb 21, 2005 - 9:38 am 97. Kevin P:

Jukebox:

You now belong to the Clinton Death list crowd.The anti-Bush crowd is so desperate for a scandal that they leap on any morsel and inflate it into a conspiracy. The backround checks are done to identify security risks, not morallity risks. I doubt that the secret servive is trolling porn sites to see if the journalists in the White House are into kinky sex. They leave that to you and your friends.These people are not working for the White House, they are being let into the white house press room. The A is true, B is true, therefore x is true style of paranoid UFO conspiracy cults may play well on after midnight radio shows but to us in the real world there are larger concerns to focus on. Keep your digging going and someday you can join the Clinton is a drug lord murderer crowd on the folding tables hawking their Kinko produced books.

Feb 21, 2005 - 10:59 am 98. richard mcenroe:

Jukeboxgrad ó “Nice job pretending that you wouldn’t be screaming bloody murder if you found out a prostitute with a phony name had spent two years mysteriously wandering around the White House press room during the Clinton adminstration.” Shoot, son, we had a prostitute sitting in the Oval Office for eight years during that registration. Seemed worth making a fuss about.

“”what goal was served in by all these fanciful conspiracies?”

Good question. I’m glad you share my curiosity. I think that one way or another we’ll find out.” ó And now we’ve moved into complete Yosemite Sam country: “I don’t know how ya done it, but ya done it!” Except in your case, you don’t even know what you’re alleging has been done that ya don’t know how it was done.

Run along now.

Feb 21, 2005 - 8:46 pm 99. richard mcenroe:

Jukeboxgrad ó “Nice job pretending that you wouldn’t be screaming bloody murder if you found out a prostitute with a phony name had spent two years mysteriously wandering around the White House press room during the Clinton adminstration.” Shoot, son, we had a prostitute sitting in the Oval Office for eight years during that administration. Seemed worth making a fuss about.

“”what goal was served in by all these fanciful conspiracies?”

Good question. I’m glad you share my curiosity. I think that one way or another we’ll find out.” ó And now we’ve moved into complete Yosemite Sam country: “I don’t know how ya done it, but ya done it!” Except in your case, you don’t even know what you’re alleging has been done that ya don’t know how it was done.

Run along now.

Feb 21, 2005 - 8:46 pm 100. jukeboxgrad:

“The backround checks are done to identify security risks, not morallity risks.”

Nice job revealing how naive you are about basic principles of security. Tax-cheating and prostitution are not just matters of morality, they’re matters of law. Someone with connections to multiple illegal and/or criminal activities is correctly seen as presenting an elevated security risk. Especially when this is someone who is operating under a phony name, who happens to have no prior paid experience as a journalist, whose application for regular press credentials had been formally rejected, and whose nominal “news” organization didn’t even exist at the time he first appeared inside the White House.

“I doubt that the secret servive is trolling porn sites to see if the journalists in the White House are into kinky sex.”

In most states, most forms of kinky sex are not illegal. Prostitution is. Nice job pretending this story is about the former, not the latter. Also, nice job pretending that his phony name wouldn’t be a big red flag, along with the other red flags I mentioned.

Also, nice job not bothering to explain why this guy had to jump through hoops and wait weeks, to get a pass for one day, while Gannon breezed in repeatedly with apparently no background check at all.

Also, nice job pretending that it would have taken the Secret Service more than about ten minutes to find publicly posted information that a few guys in PJs were able to find.

Notice that in our country you can be threatened with arrest and denied a chance to hear the president speak if you happen to be a schoolteacher wearing a t-shirt the government doesn’t like. But if you’re a pseudononymous tax-cheating prostitute (or at best an ex-prostitute), you can hang around the White House for a couple of years, and even get a chance to directly question the president on live national TV, even though you have no prior experience as a paid journalist and even though you’ve been formally denied regular press credentials.

Great country, huh? Thank God freedom is on the march.

“These people are not working for the White House”

Right. Just like Armstrong Williams isn’t working for the White House.

“Except in your case, you don’t even know what you’re alleging has been done”

What I do know is that a pseudononymous tax-cheating prostitute managed to masquerade as a White House journalist for a couple of years. If you don’t think that raises some questions, that’s your problem.

Feb 22, 2005 - 6:11 pm 101. Kevin P:

Jukebox:

You keep going. Convince the dems that they should make this a major campaign issue. “We will keep the White House Press Corps free from Prostitute journalists” We will put you in charge of vetting the sex lives of the journalists. And when you see the Dems have another crushing defeat you might ask yourself if focusing on trivia and trying to create fantasy conspiracy theories is doing you any good. If Clinton could win while acting like a prostitute do you think that the sex lives of the White House journalists is a matter that anyone other then the DU and Kos people care about. Keep hitting your typepad and keep this joke of a story alive and see how far it gets you.

Feb 22, 2005 - 6:29 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: