Jeff Gannon Part 2

[crimresearch]

So we are waiting for evidence that a day pass to the White house *requires* one's main source of income be from employment as a journalist, or that such passes are only given to elite members of major press organizations (and we are waiting for evidence to back up Dowd's assertions about being denied a day pass), and we are waiting to see these gay bashing articles that Gannon allegedly wrote, (and/or articles that were specifically about gays, instead of merely about topics involving gays), and we are waiting for evidence that Gannon had a criminal record of convictions that should have kept him from White House access (or that the regular background check for a day pass is so exhaustive that it bars people without any prooof that they are criminals)...

Oh well...in the interim, everyone who has already made up their minds or drawn conclusions without benefit of any such evidence, can feel free to keep on posting.

 

[Lurker]

Check out Gannon's latest whine at;

http://www.jeffgannon.com/fear_and_loathing_in_the_press_r.htm

After reading it, I think it is hte smoking gun that Gannon had no talent at journalism. I mean, he mangles the English language repeatedly!

Lurker

 

[Lurker]

On the subject of Gannon's anti-gay writings, it is difficult to find since Talon News scrubbed all of his columns. Still, we have;

In 2003, when Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) told the Associated Press that legalizing gay sex could lead to judicial approval of "man on dog" activities, Gannon wrote a Talon article headlined "Santorum Won't Apologize; AP Reporter Has Kerry Ties." Gannon quoted gay activists offering what he said were "predictable responses," then questioned the role of the AP reporter, who was married to John Kerry's then-campaign manager.

In a story last year, Gannon wrote that Kerry "might someday be known as 'the first gay president.' . . . The Massachusetts liberal has enjoyed a 100% rating from the homosexual advocacy group, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), since 1995 in recognition of his support for the pro-gay agenda."

We also know that Talon News, his employer, is anti-gay.

No, I think Gannon's hypocrisy on this one is evident. It is not a big deal in comparison to the more important questions regarding Gannon.

 

[RandFan]

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.

Because others have made it an issue.

 

[Lurker]

Well, I think had it been a reporter who merely used an alias this would not be a story. But there is far more to the story and unfortunately, the name part of it all has been dredged up as more than it is.

Although, one could make the case that his use of an alias was to hide his associations with the homosexual side. And then one can wonder about the wisdom of providing access to the White House to someone who has some pretty strong blackmail stuff in his closet.

But back to Coulter, let me reiterate that her column does not spend any substantive amount of ink on the real concerns about Gannon. I would be incredibly naive to think Coulter just forgot to write about those aspects of the Gannon affair. No, Coulter wants to gloss over the substantive parts in order to try and make this all look petty. Classic misdirection. I hope you are not falling for it, RandFan.

Lurker

 

[RandFan]

I hope you are not falling for it, RandFan.

Go back and read the OP and you tell me.

 

[Ladewig]

One could probably make an argument that a former prostitute passing an FBI press corps background check is no big thing. The purpose of such a check is simply to make sure that the person is not a threat to the president (and probably to make sure that the person is not a member of a foreign intelligence service). Gannon was not a physical threat to the president so giving him clearance to attend press conferences is not a sign of a conspiracy or of incompetence.



Still. It is pretty funny.

 

[Lurker]

From Coulter's Column
Liberals keep telling us the media isn't liberal, but in order to retaliate for the decimation of major news organizations like The New York Times, CBS News and CNN, all they can do is produce the scalp of an obscure writer for an unknown conservative Web page. And unlike Raines, Rather and Jordan, they can't even get Gannon for incompetence on the job.

This area is laughably dishonest of Coulter. Mainstream "liberal" media has NOT even printed this story. Not on the evening news of CBS. NBC, or CBS. It has not been in any of the major newspapers (NYT, WaPost, ChiTrib, LATim, USAToday) except in one or two OpEd columns.

Coulter sure triesd to give the impression that big liberal media is running wioth this story but it has been confined to smaller papers and the Internet.

As for incompetence, Gannon quoted Congressman Reid and used a made-up quote by Limbaugh. Gannon plagairized White House releases without attribution. Gannon also reported about a Kerry-Intern affair that had no substance behind it. No, Gannon was pretty incompetent despite Coulter thinking otherwise.

RandFan, glad you are not falling for Coulter's smoke and mirror. But I also hope you are seeing her blatant lies in the column as well.

Lurker

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

Well I thought I had seen the hight of misdirection and trying to lay blame on anyone but the responsible parties but this is so stupid it's funny. Here's some past remarks

On Thursday 02/24/05 Scott McClellan press secretary to G.Bush stated that the lapse in the Jeff Gannon affair was "Clinton's fault". He stated that the former President layed the rules for the Vetting and operations of the PR dept. of the white house.

Q: Were you aware that he had another name?

McClellan: Was I aware? I had heard that. I had heard that, yes, recently.

Q: But did you know during all this time that he really wasn't Jeff Gannon?

McClellan: I heard at some point, yes -- previously.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000798395

reduex
February 14, 2005

NEW YORK

Talon News reporter James D. Guckert got to ask questions at White
House press briefings for nearly two years, but White House Press
Secretary Scott McClellan didn't know he was using an alias until the
past few weeks, McClellan told E&P today.

http://www.talkaboutgovernment.com/group/alt.politics.republicans/messages/554326.html

Well which is it? He knew or didn't know?

Ari Fleisher former press sec.

NEW YORK
Former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer was so concerned about Talon News reporter James Guckert's potential ties to the Republican Party that he stopped calling on him at press briefings for about a week in 2003, Fleischer told E&P today.

"I found out that he worked for a GOP site, and I didn't think it was my place to call on him because he worked for something that was related to the party," Fleischer said in a phone interview. "He had the editor call me and made the case that they were not related to the Republican Party. He said they used the GOP name for marketing purposes only."

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000807754



Christ what a nest of lying vipers.

 

[Lurker]

[*]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.[/list]

See, even this one is a screwup by Coulter. Clinton adopted his step-father's last name when he was in High School. That is a far cry from changing one's name the way Coulter uses it.

John Kerry never changed his name so I have no idea what Coulter is talking about. Yes, Kerry's grandfather changed his last name way back at the turn of the century or so but again, that is far different than what Coulter implies here.

Even the Gary Hart one is a lie by Coulter. I think it was Hart's father that changed his last name from Hartpence to Hart, which was their original family name anyway.

So, in these three examples, Coulter tries to make it sound like the three individuals themselves changed their name for no apparent reason yet we see that in two cases they did not change it and in the third (Clinton) we see that his mother remarried and Clinton eventually adopted his last name (having great respect for his step-father).

Lurker

 

[kimiko]

Um...I think you must have missed the parts where I disagreed with using his sexuality against him. I was just trying to explain why others were, according to your OP.

Suggesting that a person is unqualified for a job based on race, sex, class, religion or sexual identity is wrong.

No one is saying he's unqualified because he's gay. I meant it is fair to mention it because it is part of what people use to evaluate others, like their credibility. Social psych research shows that the impression of a person's credibility changes when they support something that logic would suggest they probably wouldn't, like being gay and Republican.

BTW, your question displays your ignorance of politics, the Republican party and Gays and Lesbians.

No need to be rude. I'm hardly ignorant of gays and lesbians, although I don't care if I'm ignorant of the Republican party. I used to consider myself a Republican but couldn't stomach the irreconcilable differences I had with the party's aims. I've been to the Log Cabin Republicans website before and read their FAQ. It still doesn't answer my question. I fully understand the idea of changing something from the inside when you agree with some points and not others, but the party is not simply maintaining the status quo on civil rights, but actively using homophobia and pushing for explicit discrimination. I find that unconscionable. Because a vote is for the whole package a candidate supports and not just the parts one agrees with, I cannot fathom how anyone would support a party that works to infringe their civil rights.

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

I don't know what you meant by this.

SOME Republicans. Republicans are not monolithic.

Of course not, but the administration actively supports restrictive sexual values.

 

[RandFan]

kimiko,

Sorry for the tone but I'm getting a bit exasperated at the lack of critical thinking when it comes to this issue.

Um...I think you must have missed the parts where I disagreed with using his sexuality against him. I was just trying to explain why others were, according to your OP.

And...

No one is saying he's unqualified because he's gay. I meant it is fair to mention it because it is part of what people use to evaluate others, like their credibility.

Doesn't wash. Ok, if he is gay and he writes anti-gay propaganda then I would agree with you.

Social psych research shows that the impression of a person's credibility changes when they support something that logic would suggest they probably wouldn't, like being gay and Republican.

Let me see if I understand you correctly, Gay? Ok. Republican? Ok. Gay and Republican? Oh hell, well, there must be something wrong with this guy.

C'mon, give me a break.

Being Gay and Republican is not a meaningful reason to discredit someone. That is as odious as Black and Republican or female and Republican. And NO, logic does NOT suggest that someone would not like being gay and Republican. That is as silly as saying someone would not like being Gay and American simply because there are anti gay Americans. Yes there are anti-gay Republicans and yes they influence to a degree policy. But the Republican party is far more than that. There are many reasons why a gay or lesbian would want to be a Republican.

No need to be rude.

You are the one insulting gays and lesbians. Many if not most Gay and Lesbian Republicans are educated and successful professionals. They are not dumb red necks who don't know any better.

I'm hardly ignorant of gays and lesbians...

Oh really, you react as if ALL gays and lesbians must only act in a way you deem appropriate and question them when they act in a way that you don't like and certainly haven't taken the time to understand.

...although I don't care if I'm ignorant of the Republican party. I used to consider myself a Republican but couldn't stomach the irreconcilable differences I had with the party's aims.

Then perhaps you can empathize with gays and lesbians who can't stomach the irreconcilable differences they have with the democratic party's aims.

The problem kimiko is that you only see what fits your world view. Republicans in your eyes are evil and bad and their ideology is antithetical to gays and lesbians. This is demonstrably untrue. Many if not most of us see the Republican Party as the party of Lincoln. We believe in freedom. We believe in being inclusive. We are the big tent. We believe that both the Free Market and the Government are subject to corruption. However we believe that Market forces are better at correcting problems than government bureaucracies and oversight.

Yes, there are very real problems facing Gays and Lesbians in the Republican party. You could at least respect them for not abandoning their principles because there are problems.

I'll tell you something. There was a time when the Democratic party was very racist. You might not know this but most Blacks did not abandoned the party. They believed that Democratic party stood for values that they thought worth fighting for.

Is it too much to imaging that Log Cabin Republicans could have the same fortitude and foresight?

I've been to the Log Cabin Republicans website before and read their FAQ. It still doesn't answer my question.

Then you likely don't even know what your question is. Log Cabin republicans don't share your ideology. Is that too difficult for you to understand. To Log Cabin Republicans politics is more than the very real issues that face them as Gays and Lesbians.

You seem to think that they should abandon their party and embrace your ideology simply because you don't like the Republican Party and you don't agree with their aims. Log Cabin Republicans agree with more of the aims of Republicans than they agree with Democrats aims.

I fully understand the idea of changing something from the inside when you agree with some points and not others, but the party is not simply maintaining the status quo on civil rights, but actively using homophobia and pushing for explicit discrimination.

The party is NOT monolithic. And civil rights issues are NOT universally shared. Most favor civil unions but oppose Gay Marriage. BTW so do a majority of Democrats. The Defense of Marriage bill passed with 60% support in California. A state that is solidly Democrat. It is short sighted to see the issue as simply as a problem of the Republican party.

I find that unconscionable.

I find demagoguery and ignorance unconscionable.

Because a vote is for the whole package a candidate supports and not just the parts one agrees with, I cannot fathom how anyone would support a party that works to infringe their civil rights.

I couldn't either. If what you are saying is true I would join the Libertarian party and so would most Log Cabin Republicans. What you are saying is not true and that is why they don't change affiliation.

I don't know what you meant by this.

Log cabin Republicans don't believe in throwing the baby out with the bath water. They would no more leave the Republican party because some nut jobs are having sway than the would leave America because the self same nut jobs are having sway.

Of course not, but the administration actively supports restrictive sexual values.

I'm growing weary of your broad and general accusations. Could you please be specific and back up your claims?

 

[Nova Land]

Eric Boehlert at Salon.com has been done a number of good articles relating to Gannon/Guckert. I'm including links, but to read these stories one needs either to be a paid subscriber or to watch an ad.

This first story provides a good explanation of the three different categories of passes. The day pass was not intended for the use to which Guckert/Gannon put it. There used to be a third category of press pass which was used in this way, but it was discontinued for good reason.

Giving "Gannon" A Pass
Eric Boehlert, Feb. 11, 2005

... Hard passes to the White House are designed to give journalists who regularly cover the White House easy access: They simply swipe their credentials at the entrance while the Secret Service checks their bags. Day passes ... are intended to provide flexibility for out-of-town journalists who might need to cover the White House for a day or two, or to allow White House reporters to bring in visitors who want to see the press briefings. But the current day-pass system was not set up to give permanent access to reporters who, like Guckert, fail to qualify for a hard pass.

... To receive a hard pass, a journalist must submit a letter confirming that he or she works for a legitimate news organization, lives in the D.C. area, and needs access to the White House for regular news stories...

... Guckert had no prospect of landing a White House hard pass, so he simply adopted the day-pass system and turned it into his personal revolving door. In doing so, he created his own variation on a now-defunct third category of White House press pass, called the card index, which once allowed journalists to gain access to press briefings for weeks or months a time. But this system is defunct for one simple reason: It's not secure enough. Following the Sept. 11 attacks, the Secret Service did away with the card index...

In another article, Boehlert gives a clear summary of the purpose of a day pass, and how it differs from a hard pass:

In the past, a reporter seeking a permanent White House press pass has had to first secure credentials to cover Capitol Hill. Without those, the White House would not submit the application for a background check. But even though Guckert failed to secure Capitol Hill credentials, the White House waved him into press briefings for nearly two years using what's called a day pass. Those passes are designed for temporary use by out-of-town reporters who need access to the White House, not for indefinite use by reporters who flunk the Capitol Hill test.

If there were valid security reasons for discontinuing the card index category, then permitting Guckert/Gannon to circumvent the rules and use a day pass as if it were a card index constitutes a breach of security. That raises the question (still not answered): who in the White House permitted this breach of security?

It also raises the questions:
(a) Why was this breach of security permitted?
(b) Were the people in charge of security aware of it? If so, why did they go along with this breach? If not, why not?

 

[Nova Land]

"Jeff Gannon's" Incredible Access
Eric Boehlert, Feb. 17, 2005

...Despite administration claims that Guckert simply followed established protocol in order to routinely slip inside the White House briefing room, it now appears clear that Guckert ... benefited from extraordinarily preferential treatment, likely granted by someone inside the White House press office.

... There's now documented evidence that Guckert attended White House briefings as early as February 2003... The date is significant because in order to receive a White House press pass, Guckert would have needed to prove that he worked for a news organization that, in the words of White House press secretary Scott McClellan, "published regularly," in itself an extraordinarily low threshold...

But what's significant about the February 2003 date is that Talon did not even exist then. The organization was created in late March 2003, and began publishing online in early April 2003... Gannon ... has already stated publicly that Talon News was his first job in journalism. That means he wasn't working for any other news outlet in February 2003 when he was spotted by C-Span cameras inside the White House briefing room. And that means Guckert was ushered into the White House press room in February 2003 for a briefing despite the fact he was not a journalist.

Whereas it was once suspected that White House press officials in charge of doling out coveted press passes went easy on Guckert, ... it now appears those unnamed White House officials simply ignored all established credential standards -- including detailed security guidelines -- and gave Guckert White House access, even though he had no professional standing whatsoever.

In order to get a press pass, shouldn't you have to actually be a member of the press? That would seem to be an elementary principle, and should apply for any kind of press pass -- hard or daily.

For more than a week White House officials have refused to answer any of Salon's questions regarding the credential process used for Guckert's press passes.

Why? It should be a fairly straightforward matter to explain how the process works. I have trouble thinking of a legitimate reason for the White House to refuse to answer such questions.

The failure to answer these questions immediately suggests a strong possibility the White House did not want these questions answered until everyone had a chance to get their stories straight. That is a good warning flag that when statements are issues they should be checked carefully and not accepted blindly. I amazed that there are people who strain mightily at Maureen Dowd's statement that she was denied a press pass but blithely swallow administration claims that Gannon/Guckert was treated no differently than anyone else.

 

[Nova Land]

originally claimed by Ann Coulter:

Almost anyone can get a daily pass...

This is an interesting assertion. When the story of Gannon/Guckert began breaking open, some of the people at Daily Kos wondered if that were indeed true. They checked to see how they could get such passes. I can try to look up the links to the threads in which they reported on their problems doing so, if anyone is seriously gullible enough to believe Coulter on this.

Here is another of Boehlert's Salon.com articles. In this one, Joe Lockhart explains the day pass system

"Gannongate: It's worse than you think"
Eric Boehlert, Feb. 23, 2005

White House press secretary Scott McClellan originally told reporters that Guckert was properly allowed into press briefings because he worked for an outlet that "published regularly"... More recently McClellan offered up a new rationale. Asked by Editor and Publisher magazine how the decision was made to allow a GOPUSA correspondent in, McClellan said, "The staff assistant went to verify that the news organization existed."

That, apparently, was the lone criterion the press office used when Guckert (aka Jeff Gannon) approached it in February 2003 seeking a pass for White House briefings... To determine whether Guckert would gain entrance to the press room, normally reserved for professional journalists working for legitimate, recognized and independent news organizations, the press office simply logged on to the Internet and confirmed that GOPUSA "existed"...

This is not how the White House press office has traditionally worked. "When I was there we didn't let political operatives in. It was completely contrary to what the press room should be used for," says Joe Lockhart, who served as White House press secretary to President Clinton during his second term. Asked what would have happened if a reporter from a clearly partisan operation, say "Democrats Today," had requested a White House press pass, Lockhart said that if the chief of the Democratic National Committee were attending an event at the White House, then perhaps the Democrats Today reporter might be allowed in for that one day. "But to be admitted as a reporter and sit in a chair and act like a reporter" for months on end the way Guckert did? "No," said Lockhart, "that's not within the realm of what [is] proper."

... To obtain a day pass during the Clinton administration, a reporter "had to make the case as to why that day was unique and why [he] had to cover the White House from inside the gates instead of outside," Lockhart says.

In order to cover the White House regularly with a hard pass, one must first be accredited to cover Capitol Hill. Guckert/Gannon knew this, and applied for this in December 2003 (i.e. 2 months before his appearance on video at a White House press briefing). Here is Boehlert's account

... Guckert submitted his application in December 2003 to the Standing Committee of Correspondents, a press group in charge of handing out credentials. In April 2004, the committee denied Guckert's request. Writing to Guckert, committee chairman Jim Drinkard outlined three clear deficiencies in Guckert's application:

1) "Committee guidelines require that on-line publications 'must charge a market rate fee for subscription or access, or carry paid advertising at current market rates.' You have not demonstrated to the committee's satisfaction that Talon News has any paid subscribers, that paid client newspapers publish Talon News stories, or that it is supported by advertising."

2) "The application for accreditation to the press galleries states that 'members of the press shall not engage in lobbying or paid advertising, publicity, promotion, work for any individual, political party, corporation, organization, or agency of the Federal Government.' Talon News has not demonstrated to the satisfaction of the committee that there is a separation from GOPUSA."

3) "Gallery rules and the application state that the principal income of correspondents must be obtained from news correspondence intended for publication in newspapers or news services. The committee feels that paying a single reporter a 'stipend' does not meet the intent of the rule."

Those are some of the qualifications required of reporters who wish to cover the White House on a regular basis.

By filing his application, Guckert/Gannon shows that he was aware that accreditation to cover Capitol Hill is a necessary prerequisite for obtaining a hard pass to attend White House press briefings regularly. Thus, his use of a day pass to when his accreditation was rejected shows a deliberate attempt to circumvent the rules. The question is who in the White House aided him in that circumvention, and why?

 

[Nova Land]

By the way: you might want to look at a diary at Daily Kos which I quoted from two weeks ago in a thread here, "Gannon", sex, and an admirable moral standard. In it, SusanG, the woman who coordinated the effort at Daily Kos that led to the unmasking of "Jeff Gannon", had this to say as far as the matter of Gannon/Guckert's sexual orientation and sex life:

I don't care if Mr. G is gay; I happen to think he's not. I don't care if he owns domain names that make us all (and the mainstream media) giggle. I see no evidence that he's running any sort of prostitution ring and I think any sort of charges along these lines should be backed up with solid research. I don't care if years ago he posted a racy picture of himself online... If this supposedly horrible sex stuff is what's bringing him down in all this mess, it's not only sad for him as an individual, it's sad for us as a nation.

When I look at the people representing the press in these briefings, I don't care what pictures of them are floating around, what their sexual orientation is or what domain names they own. What I want to know is this: are you a qualified reporter from a recognizably legitimate outlet? It is on these counts that Mr. G should be escorted out of the hallowed briefing room, not on this mindless titillating speculation about his private life...

And oh, yeah ... remind me. Just what was this guy doing with access to an internal classified memo?

His lack of qualifications, the dubious nature of his "news" outlet and his access to that memo are the real questions. The rest is just smoke and mirrors...

I thought that was an admirable stance to take, and one worth sharing with people here. It is one she repeatedly stressed during an intense week of trying to track down the facts about the elusive (and illusive) Gannon/Guckert.

When the story began to break in the mainstream media, she and others noted with some dismay that the thing the media was picking up on (and, too often, making the focus) was the sex angle.

I encourage you to go read her diaries over there. Not only is it a fascinating story (although it was even more fascinating watching it as it unfolded) but she is a person you might find yourself agreeing with on a number of key points (such as this one about Gannon's sex life).

 

[RandFan]

By the way: you might want to look at a diary at Daily Kos which I quoted from two weeks ago in a thread here, "Gannon", sex, and an admirable moral standard. In it, SusanG, the woman who coordinated the effort at Daily Kos that led to the unmasking of "Jeff Gannon", had this to say as far as the matter of Gannon/Guckert's sexual orientation and sex life: I thought that was an admirable stance to take, and one worth sharing with people here. It is one she repeatedly stressed during an intense week of trying to track down the facts about the elusive (and illusive) Gannon/Guckert.

My thanks to Nova. This is precisely what I wanted to discuss in this thread and it does my heart good to see that someone gets it.

A special kudos to SusanG. I will visit the link.

 

[RandFan]

What I want to know is this: are you a qualified reporter from a recognizably legitimate outlet? It is on these counts that Mr. G should be escorted out of the hallowed briefing room, not on this mindless titillating speculation about his private life...

And I think it fair to ask how this all happened.

 

[crimresearch]

First, let me add my thanks to NovaLand for getting such detailed information.


Guckert submitted his application in December 2003 to the Standing Committee of Correspondents, a press group in charge of handing out credentials.

However, I now am quite concerned that 'freedom of the press' has to jump through hurdles such as 'Standing Comittees'', and 'accreditation'...but that is a topic for another thread.

It does indeed look as though Coulter may have to fall on her pen...or on the old standby of 'satire'.

 

[kimiko]

Being Gay and Republican is not a meaningful reason to discredit someone.

That's not why they are discrediting him, that's the hook of the story that the media is picking up that makes Republicans seem hypocritical. He is discredited because of the easy question, he lacks journalistic credentials, works for obscure partisan media and may have been a planted political shill.

That is as odious as Black and Republican or female and Republican.

False analogy. These would only be equivalent if the Republican party wanted to amend the constitution to exclude blacks and women from something, or supported restricting them from certain federal jobs or used misogynism or racism as baits in federal elections.

And NO, logic does NOT suggest that someone would not like being gay and Republican.

I find being gay and actively supporting Republicans to be equivalent to blacks supporting apartheid in South Africa or women supporting the Taliban, just not quite so extreme.

That is as silly as saying someone would not like being Gay and American simply because there are anti gay Americans.

No, because being an American does not automatically lend support to the agenda of anti-gay Americans. Donating and voting for Republicans supports their entire agenda, not simply the parts one agrees with.

You are the one insulting gays and lesbians. Many if not most Gay and Lesbian Republicans are educated and successful professionals. They are not dumb red necks who don't know any better.

I never said anything even remotely like saying they are dumb or redneck. Please don't project onto me. Nor have I insulted gays or lesbians. I simply think any gay or lesbian who actively supports the Republican party is compromising on essential civil rights, which I am against personally, so I question why they do it.

Oh really, you react as if ALL gays and lesbians must only act in a way you deem appropriate and question them when they act in a way that you don't like and certainly haven't taken the time to understand.

I don't think they "must" do anything. I have taken the time to understand that viewpoint, but I still disagree. I'm not trying to change anyone, I don't care what party they support. Do you think I don't have a right to ask people what the motivations for what they do are? It's no different from any other political reasoning to me. I asked libertarian friends why they voted for Bush and not third party, why shouldn't I ask others why they do what they do?

The problem kimiko is that you only see what fits your world view. Republicans in your eyes are evil and bad and their ideology is antithetical to gays and lesbians.

You neither know me nor know what I think about Republicans, except on certain issues I've posted about. I've never said Republicans are evil, but I acknowledge that parts of the Republican 'agenda' directly oppose equal rights for gays and lesbians. Please don't project your negative view of whatever (Democrats? liberals?) onto me.

This is demonstrably untrue. Many if not most of us see the Republican Party as the party of Lincoln. We believe in freedom. We believe in being inclusive. We are the big tent. We believe that both the Free Market and the Government are subject to corruption. However we believe that Market forces are better at correcting problems than government bureaucracies and oversight.

Democrats identify with everything you just listed except that they think the market is less capable at correcting certain problems. 'Big tent' Republicans aren't setting the party agenda regarding sexuality issues. And since you said 'demonstrably', support your contention that Republicans are explicitly inclusive of non-traditional sexuality.

Yes, there are very real problems facing Gays and Lesbians in the Republican party. You could at least respect them for not abandoning their principles because there are problems.

I'm not a cheerleader for every subgroup of the population. I can respect the Log Cabin Republicans for reserving endorsements and financial contributions only for inclusive Republicans, but there are only about 12,000 members from what I've read, and over a million gays voted Republican in 2000. My personal opinion is that anyone who voted for non-inclusive Republicans, including the Bush presidential ticket, or donated money and time the general party are compromising on fundamental civil rights. If that offends you, then so be it.

Then you likely don't even know what your question is. Log Cabin republicans don't share your ideology. Is that too difficult for you to understand. To Log Cabin Republicans politics is more than the very real issues that face them as Gays and Lesbians.

Maybe you should try some of that "understanding" you think I need to see how I find civil rights to be fundamental and not secondary to other political issues.

You seem to think that they should abandon their party and embrace your ideology simply because you don't like the Republican Party and you don't agree with their aims. Log Cabin Republicans agree with more of the aims of Republicans than they agree with Democrats aims.

Um, no. I think they shouldn't compromise on certain values, by supporting a party that doesn't. Following Bush's endorsement of the federal amendment, I would question exactly what they'd have to do for gay Republicans to leave the party. There are other parties that support small government.

The party is NOT monolithic. And civil rights issues are NOT universally shared. Most favor civil unions but oppose Gay Marriage. BTW so do a majority of Democrats. The Defense of Marriage bill passed with 60% support in California. A state that is solidly Democrat. It is short sighted to see the issue as simply as a problem of the Republican party.

Homophobia is a problem in the society as a whole, but Democrats haven't made discrimination an important issue. "Civil union" is just another way of saying "marriage". I find anyone who voted for the Defense of Marriage act and similar things around the country to be acting in a discriminatory fashion.

I'm growing weary of your broad and general accusations. Could you please be specific and back up your claims?

I grow weary of your feigned ignorance of what your party has done and supported; you should be aware of examples of them opposing rights for homosexuals and supporting restrictive sexual values.

• Bush endorsing the Federal Marriage Amendment
• firing Arabic linguists who are gay
• appointment of Tom Coburn, Patricia Ware, and Joe McIlhaney Jr but no scientists to PACHA
• appointing Claude Allen and Wade Horn to the Department of Health and Human Services
• not objecting to the chair of the House oversight subcommittee on HHS doing an intimidating audit of AIDS organizations
• funding abstinence based sex education in lieu of effective comprehensive programs
• changing the birth rate in evaluations of abstinence based programs to make them seem more effective
• removing information showing the effectiveness of comprehensive sex ed from the CDC website
• removing information about the use and effectiveness of condoms from the CDC website and replacing it with information emphasizing the failure of condoms
• the Employment Non-Discrimination Act's resistance by Republicans
• blocking approved funding to the UN Population Fund

This isn't inclusive at all, but just from notes I'd taken on certain things and others that I remember, so I wouldn't doubt if there was far more.

But back to the real point. This administration has already been exposed creating false news and being negligent in background searches, so the press pass and seemingly planted question aren't even unexpected. The one thing that sets this story apart is the 'values' party having a stooge that so obviously doesn't share the values they pander to. Maybe it offends you that people point it out or you simply disagree that Repubs have any association with traditional values. Fine, but others see it that way. Personally, I think spotlighting sexuality entrenches the status of gays as an 'other' in our society and is damaging. However, pointing out hypocrisy speaks directly to the credibility of the administration, so it is an issue.