• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Jeff Gannon Part 2

Ladewig said:
As for the gay thing: I have not come across any websites that complain about Gannon being gay as a reason why he should not have had White House access. If anyone knows of any liberal site that holds that position, please provide a link.
Click to expand...
Hmmm... I'm not so certain. Who was it that outed Gannon and why do I know about it? Who did the investigative leg work and why is it reported so often? As I recall it was bloggers who uncovered his web site.

It was mentioned often on this forum.

Jeff Gannon a.k.a. Jim Guckert: White House Press Plant Extraordinaire/Gay Porn Guy

Jeff Gannon aka Jim Guckert, and gay smut

And I'm not certain that complaining about his sexuality is realy the point. Why mention it at all? Why the lurid headlines?
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Jeff Gannon Part 2

Furious said:
Nah, its just that when you create a shill for your party (which is the relevant issue, whether it turns out to be true or not), it is best not to have someone who's sexual orientation was a significant reason for a bunch of your party's election day victories.

The name thing wouldn't be a big deal at all either if it didn't appear that Jeff had something to hide. The people Ann listed clearly changed their names for marketing or privacy reasons. That isn't as obvious in Jeff's case, because he was a nobody before this story came out. Jeff might have been (I believe probably) legitimately doing the same as the others, but since it appears he had something to hide, it has that air of someone trying to run away from his past by changing his name.

Neither are truly relevant to the alleged crime in question, but it does liven up the story a bit and sell newspapers. Yeah, if this were a court case it wouldn't be relevant, but then when has the court of public opinion ever been fair?

To flip your question around, why should Jeff get a break from the usual smear? :p
Click to expand...
Great post.
 
Gay - not particularly a problem.

Male escort service proprietor - not particularly a problem.

Abnormally easy access to the White House - his prior expertise suggests something other than his journalistic credentials as his primary qualification for the job.

Following this line of thought:
Which White House officials were Gannon clients in his prior business venture?
How does conducting business with Gannon's former business line fit with the moral values of the current administration?
Did the US taxpayers fund any of these previous business arrangements?
Should Kenneth Starr piss away $50 million bucks trying to find out?
Have any of the federal investigative agencies done DNA testing on Gannon's dress blues (military escort uniform).
 
fishbob said:
Have any of the federal investigative agencies done DNA testing on Gannon's dress blues (military escort uniform).
Click to expand...
:D Ohhhh... good one.
 
RandFan said:
You are right, it is a very real issue. I have conceded that already. You are wrong however in stating that it is a realy issue "here". I tried to make it clear that I wanted to just address these issues. Two wrongs don't make a right and if focusing on Gannon's sexuality is wrong (not certain yet) then the severity of the behavior by the Bush Admin doesn't obviate that wrong.
Click to expand...
Let me put it another way then: Coulter is practicing diversion here. She is giving voice to the aspects of the controversy that are largely irrelevant, so as to drown out discussion of the real issue.

Now something about Coulter, apart from the logic of what she did say... In my judgement, she is only defending Guckert's right to not have his sexuality an issue because that's what cuts well for Republicans in this case. If the shoe were on the other foot, she'd be beating the gay angle to death. But, oh, then all of a sudden, she'd be considered a "humorist."
 
hgc said:
Let me put it another way then: Coulter is practicing diversion here. She is giving voice to the aspects of the controversy that are largely irrelevant, so as to drown out discussion of the real issue.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant to whom? Are you the arbiter of relevancy?

Now something about Coulter, apart from the logic of what she did say... In my judgement, she is only defending Guckert's right to not have his sexuality an issue because that's what cuts well for Republicans in this case.
Click to expand...
Of course but the sword cuts both ways, right?

If the shoe were on the other foot, she'd be beating the gay angle to death.
Click to expand...
If the shoe were on the other foot others would rightfully criticize her.

But, oh, then all of a sudden, she'd be considered a "humorist."
Click to expand...
Perhaps, none of this addresses the point of the thread but I'm glad you got to make your point. Is there anything else you would like to discuss in this thread?
 
RandFan said:
Questions:
  • Does the fact That Jeff Gannon is gay have any relevance whatsoever? Isn't pointing out the fact that he is gay (assuming he is) and ran a male prostitution ring (escort service) character assassination (politics of hate) and antithetical to liberal and democrat values?
Click to expand...

  • I don't care what Gannon does for a living. But if he's breaking the law, he should be punished.

    But that's not the point. There will always be wierdo's trying to get into the whitehouse. The question that needs to be answered is, how did this guy get past security, and was it because of political connections or ahem his professional life.

    This is rather like the Dick Morris story, where Morris's affair with a prostitute ruined his career. That's an illegal and scandlous activity that nevertheless did not compromise the security of the President of the United States.

    Letting prostitutes into the White House to ask questions of the President, well, that points to a big post-911 security hole, and that's the real story.

    I'm not a big fan of the president, but I still think it's a good idea to protect him from people pretending to be journalists.

    Let's face it, for all the Secret Service caught, "Jeff Gannon"'s real name might have turned out to be Mohammed Atta, and they might have found that out after it was too late. Is that how you get into the white house, make up a fake news website, assume a false name and start tossing winger questions out? If so, we've got to close THAT hole.




    [*]Does the fact that he changed his name have any relevance? As Ann points out changing ones name is common for politicians, entertainers and even journalists including Gary Hart, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Wolf Blitzer, Randi Rhodes and even George Orwell.
    Click to expand...

A legally changed name isn't the same as an assumed name. But beyond that, I'm going to assume that the Secret Service checked up on Wolf Blitzer before he got to meet with the President. Funny they didn't check "Jeff Gannon".

And if they DID, and still passed him, then at whose order was it done?
Click to expand...
 
RandFan said:
And I'm not certain that complaining about his sexuality is really the point. Why mention it at all? Why the lurid headlines?
Click to expand...

Why mention it? Because it is so g'damned funny. The Republicans brought out the defense of marriage drum and beat it so loudly that other issues could not be discussed. Republican Rick Santorum stood up in congress and declared gay marriage a threat to homeland security. It is the irony of it all.

Why mention it? Because if he had been throwing softball questions to Clinton in the 1990's you can bet that the Republicans would have mentioned it.

Why mention it? Because Gannon wrote a piece saying that if Kerry won, he would be the first gay president (because he received so much support from the gay community). Oops, looks like Coulter swung and missed again when she said "Gannon didn't write about gays. No 'hypocrisy' is being exposed."

Just because his sexuality is frequently mentioned, doesn't mean that people think his sexuality should keep him out of the press corp. Similarly, many people on this board think O'Reilly is a hack and they like to mention his sexually harassing a cow-orker. It is not the latter that makes him a hack, it is the latter that makes it so much fun to mock him. Similarly, many people think Rush Limbaugh is a hack and they frequently mention his violating federal drug laws. It is not the latter that makes him a hack, it is the latter that makes it so much fun to mock him.
 
Ladewig said:

Why mention it? Because Gannon wrote a piece saying that if Kerry won, he would be the first gay president (because he received so much support from the gay community). Oops, looks like Coulter swung and missed again when she said "Gannon didn't write about gays. No 'hypocrisy' is being exposed."
Click to expand...


Read the Corn article I linked already. Corn mentions where Gannon wrote about gay related affairs. He even analyzes the first gay president article you are talking about.
 
corplinx said:
I prefer what David Corn of The Nation (a drasticly different source than Ann Coulter) had to say.

David is a great columnist who recently wrote a book called "The Lies of George W. Bush". He has some really keen insights on the Gannon situation and corrects many of the distortions and hyperbole from the blogosphere.

Edited to add: the previous column he links in that one should be read for even more great insights where he debunks notions that Gannon was a "lifeline" for press conferences and some of the other woo from the blogosphere.
Click to expand...


Well I don't think blogs are all that useful for any information. Some Blogs appear to be ego driven, to get "hits" or visit counts up. Why do bloggers think they are so influential? When bloggers claim they brought down Gannon or gay Governor, or anyone, I doubt their interpretation of how influential they are. Delusions of grandeur.

Bloggers on the right and left, (and not limited to extremists like marxists and equivelants), use distortion and hyperbole. When surfing the internet one really does need to be armed with a baloney detector.
 
Did he write specifically about gays, or did he write specifically about political issues such as legislation and policy debates which *included* gay issues?

And if the former, a few links to the columns that were about gays would be useful.
 
RandFan said:
I'm not getting your point. Are you saying that the sexuality of Gay Republicans is always appropriate fodder? Should a gay republican be excluded from the white house? Should gay reporters who are gay be denied access to the president?
Click to expand...

The sexuality of everyone is always appropriate fodder. As long as people let that shape their views of others it always will be. It's no different than race, sex, class or religion. I personally don't care, but many Americans do. I also don't think gays should be excluded from any part of American life, but Republicans do. It is hypocritical of them to take their support, but refuse to 'allow' them to be intelligence analysts, military personnel, or to recieve the legal protections of marriage.

Apparently Gannon is gay. He is also a Republican. Some have argued that he has written anti-gay material. If true then his work is absolutely subject to criticism and the facts should be called to attention.

Do you believe that making an issue of a Gay Republican's sexuality is always appropriate? Do you believe that "Gay Republican" is an oxymoron?
Click to expand...
I don't think it's an oxymoron to be gay and Republican, as the Log Cabin Republicans prove. I think it is appropriate to ask them why they support that party given its pandering to religious people and active support for discriminatory policies.

Why does it matter for Gannon? He asked the president a question in a press conference. Bush gives precious few press conferences, and I have read that it is decided beforehand who he will call on. Given the possible political maneuverings in who is and isn't called on, it is entirely possible that he and his question were 'planted'. That the party is presently opposed to him being fully equal to other Americans in certain arenas, it is immensly hypocritical to use a gay man but actively work against his civil rights. His past behavior as a prostitute violates the values that the Republicans support. It doesn't matter whether Gannon subjects himself to being used or supports those policies publicly while violating them in his private life. For the Republican party to say one thing and do another is hypocritical.
 
kimiko said:
The sexuality of everyone is always appropriate fodder. As long as people let that shape their views of others it always will be. It's no different than race, sex, class or religion.
Click to expand...
When something is wrong I think we should stand up against it. Suggesting that a person is unqualified for a job based on race, sex, class, religion or sexual identity is wrong. It amazes me that some people don't get this. Odd.

I don't think it's an oxymoron to be gay and Republican, as the Log Cabin Republicans prove. I think it is appropriate to ask them why they support that party given its pandering to religious people and active support for discriminatory policies.
Click to expand...
I am a member of the Log Cabin Republicans. Ask away. Those who are sincerely curious and not just asking rhetorically can get an answer to that question here. .

BTW, we are actively seeking supporters. If you have an open mind and care about the same values we have please join. You need not be gay or a lesbian.

Supporting Log Cabin Republicans

What we believe

We are loyal Republicans. We believe in low taxes, limited government, strong defense, free markets, personal responsibility, and individual liberty. Log Cabin represents an important part of the American family-taxpaying, hard working people who proudly believe in this nation's greatness. We also believe all Americans have the right to liberty, freedom, and equality. Log Cabin stands up against those who preach hatred and intolerance. We stand up for the idea that all Americans deserve to be treated equal-regardless of their sexual orientation.

Why we exist

The mere existence of our organization recognizes the fact that the Republican Party still has a long way to go on issues affecting gay and lesbian civil rights. In recent years, the GOP has made important strides toward inclusion, however much more must be done. Too many people in the party remain hostile to gay and lesbian civil rights. Log Cabin will confront the radical right's bigotry head-on as we join the majority of Republicans who believe inclusion wins.
Click to expand...
BTW, your question displays your ignorance of politics, the Republican party and Gays and Lesbians.

By your logic one should ask why African Americans support American when it panders to racists.

Why does it matter for Gannon? He asked the president a question in a press conference.
Click to expand...
So?

Bush gives precious few press conferences, and I have read that it is decided beforehand who he will call on.
Click to expand...
Ok, waiting for the payoff here.

Given the possible political maneuverings in who is and isn't called on it is entirely possible that he and his question were 'planted'.
Click to expand...
Yes, agreed...

That the party is presently opposed to him being fully equal to other Americans in certain arenas, it is immensely hypocritical to use a gay man but actively work against his civil rights.
Click to expand...
So you attack Gannon?

His past behavior as a prostitute violates the values that the Republicans support.
Click to expand...
SOME Republicans. Republicans are not monolithic. You might have not noticed but not all Democrats share the same values.

It doesn't matter whether Gannon subjects himself to being used or supports those policies publicly while violating them in his private life. For the Republican party to say one thing and do another is hypocritical.
Click to expand...
But we are talking about the efforts to discredit Gannon.
 
1. I believe the correct term for Gannon/Guckert is male prostitute. There is evidence to indicate he is a male who rented out his body (to other males) for sexual purposes. A gay is someone who is sexually attracted to others of the same sex. It is quite possible that Gannon/Guckert is gay, but that has not been established.

If the point is not clear, let me point out that there are many women who rent out their bodies (to males) for sexual purposes but who are lesbians. One need not be a heterosexual to be a female prostitute, and one need not be a homosexual to be a male prostitute.

2. Whether Gannon/Guckert is gay or not is irrelevant to the story. Whether Gannon/Guckert was a male prostitute is.

For one thing, prostitution is illegal in most places, including the places where Gannon/Guckert practiced it. For another -- and, to my mind, more important -- reason, there is the question of what the primary source of Gannon/Guckert's income was.

My understanding is that one of the requirements in order to qualify for a White House press pass is that one's main source of income be from reporting -- i.e. that journalism actually is one's job, not just a whim or hobby. Gannon/Guckert was earning $200 an hour at prostitution. It is unclear how much he was being paid to cut and paste RNC press releases, but if (as seems likely from the facts that have come out) his main source of income was prostitution rather than reporting, then he was ineligible for the press pass he kept receiving and we come back to the question of why and how he was given it.
 
Nova Land said:
My understanding is that one of the requirements in order to qualify for a White House press pass is that one's main source of income be from reporting -- i.e. that journalism actually is one's job, not just a whim or hobby.
Click to expand...
According to the article there are in fact two different passes. Are you referring to both? Can you give us some background for the requirement?
 
RandFan said:
And this is an issue because?
Click to expand...

I presume you read my earlier post where I said it was not an issue (name change). But I note that Coulter spent 7 paragraphs on this non-issue.


Substantive according to who?
Click to expand...

According to me. I don't consider the gay or name side of this issue to be all that substantive. Yet Coulter spends the majority of her column dismissing those tidbits while ignoring the more substantive problems with Gannon.

Lurker
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom