Buy Text-Link-Ads here
Recent Comments

    follow OlbyWatch on Twitter

    In

    John Gibson Welcomes Back the Infamous, Deplorable Keith Olbermann

    tonyome wrote: <a href="http://twitchy.com/2014/07/28/voxs-laughable-praise-of-keith-olber... [more](11)

    In

    Welcome Back, Olby!

    syvyn11 wrote: <a href="http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/keith-olbermann-reviving-worst... [more](9)

    In

    Former Obama Support/Donor Releases Song Supporting Romney/Ryan: "We'll Take It Back Again" by Kyle Tucker

    syvyn11 wrote: @philly I don't see that happening. ESPN has turned hyper left in recent... [more](64)

    In

    Blue-Blog-a-Palooza: Ann Romney Edition!

    djthereplay wrote: By mkdawuss on August 29, 2012 6:17 PM Will John Gibson be having a "Red-B... [more](4)

    In

    No Joy in Kosville...Mighty Olby Has Struck Out

    djwolf76 wrote: "But the FOX-GOP relationship (which is far more distinguished and prevalen... [more](23)

    KO Mini Blog



    What's in the Olbermann Flood Feed?
    Subscribe to Olbermann Flood Feed:
    RSS/XML

    KO Countdown Clock


    Warning: mktime() [function.mktime]: It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'America/New_York' for 'EDT/-4.0/DST' instead in /home/owatch/www/www.olbermannwatch.com/docs/countdown.php on line 5
    KO's new contract with MSNBC ends in...
    0 days 0 hours 0 minutes

    OlbermannWatch.com "My Faves" Set

    OlbermannWatch.com Favorited Photos from other Flickr Users

    Got OlbyPhotos? See some on Flickr? DO NOT email us. Send us a FlickrMail instead. Include a link to the photo. If we like the photo you will see it displayed in the Olby Flickr Flood above.

    New to Flickr? Sign up for a FREE Flickr account!


    Got some OlbyVideo? See some on YouTube? DO NOT email us. Send us a YouTube Messages instead. Include a link to the video. If we like the video you will see it displayed in our favorites list in our YouTube page.

    New to YouTube? Sign up for a FREE YouTube account!

    Red Meat Blog
    Keith Olbermann Quotes
    Countdown Staff Writers

    If they're not on Keith's payroll...

    ...they should be...

    Crooks & Liars
    Daily Kos
    Eschaton
    Huffington Post
    Media Matters for America
    MyDD
    News Corpse
    No Quarter
    Raw Story
    Talking Points Memo
    Think Progress
    TVNewser
    Keith Lovers

    MSNBC's Countdown
    Bloggerman
    MSNBC Transcripts
    MSNBC Group at MSN

    Drinking with Keith Olbermann
    Either Relevant or True
    KeithOlbermann.org
    Keith Olbermann is Evil
    Olbermann Nation
    Olbermann.org
    Thank You, Keith Olbermann

    Don't Be Such A Douche
    Eyes on Fox
    Liberal Talk Radio
    Oliver Willis
    Sweet Jesus I Hate Bill O'Reilly

    Anonymous Rat
    For This Relief Much Thanks
    Watching Olbermann Watch

    Keith Olbermann Fanlisting Site I
    Keith Olbermann Fanlisting Site II
    Keith Olbermann Links
    Olberfans
    Sports Center Altar
    Nothing for Everyone

    Democratic Underground KO Forum
    Television Without Pity KO Forum
    Loony KO Forum (old)
    Loony KO Forum (new)
    Olberfans Forum (old)
    Olberfans Forum (new)
    Keith Watchers

    186k per second
    Ace of Spades HQ
    Cable Gamer
    Dean's World
    Doug Ross@Journal
    Extreme Mortman
    Fire Keith Olbermann
    Hot Air
    Inside Cable News
    Instapundit
    Jawa Report
    Johnny Dollar's Place
    Just One Minute
    Little Green Footballs
    Mark Levin
    Media Research Center
    Moonbattery.com
    Moorelies
    National Review Media Blog
    Narcissistic Views
    Newsbusters
    Pat Campbell Show
    Radio Equalizer
    Rathergate
    Riehl World View
    Sister Toldjah
    Toys in the Attic
    Webloggin
    The Dark Side of Keith Olbermann
    World According to Carl

    Thanks for the blogroll link!

    Age of Treason
    Bane Rants
    The Blue Site
    Cabal of Doom-De Oppresso Libre
    Chuckoblog
    Conservative Blog Therapy
    Conservathink
    Country Store
    Does Anyone Agree?
    The Drunkablog!
    Eclipse Ramblings
    If I were President of USA
    I'll Lay Down My Glasses
    Instrumental Rationality
    JasonPye.com
    Kevin Dayhoff
    Last Train Out Of Hell
    Leaning Straight Up
    Limestone Roof
    Mein BlogoVault
    NostraBlogAss
    Peacerose Journal
    The Politics of CP
    Public Secrets: from the files of the Irishspy
    Rat Chat
    Return of the Conservatives
    The Right Place
    Rhymes with Right
    seanrobins.com
    Six Meat Buffet
    Sports and Stuff
    Stout Republican
    Stuck On Stupid
    Things I H8
    TruthGuys
    Verum Serum
    WildWeasel

    Friends of OlbyWatch

    Aaron Barnhart
    Eric Deggans
    Jason Clarke
    Ron Coleman
    Victria Zdrok
    Keith Resources

    Google News: Keith Olbermann
    Feedster: Keith Olbermann
    Technorati: Keith Olbermann
    Wikipedia: Keith Olbermann
    Wikipedia: Countdown
    Wikiality: Keith Olbermann
    Keith Olbermann Quotes on Jossip
    Keith Olbermann Photos
    NNDB Olbermann Page
    IMDB Olbermann Page
    Countdown Guest Listing & Transcripts
    Olbermann Watch FAQ
    List of Politics on Countdown (by party)
    Mark Levin's Keith Overbite Page
    Keith Olbermann's Diary at Daily Kos
    Olbermann Watch in the News

    Houston Chronicle
    Playboy
    The Journal News
    National Review
    San Antonio Express
    The Hollywood Reporter
    The Journal News
    Los Angeles Times
    American Journalism Review
    Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
    St. Petersburg Times
    Kansas City Star
    New York Post/Page Six
    Washington Post
    Associated Press
    PBS
    New York Daily News
    Online Journalism Review
    The Washingon Post
    Hartford Courant
    WTWP-AM
    The New York Observer
    The Washington Post


    Countdown with Keith Olbermann
    Great Moments in Broadcast Journalism
    Great Thanks Hall of Fame
    Keith Olbermann
    MSM KO Bandwagon
    Olbermann
    Olbermann Watch Channel on You Tube
    Olbermann Watch Debate
    Olbermann Watch Image Gallery
    Olbermann Watch Polling Service
    OlbermannWatch
    OlbyWatch Link Roundup
    TVNewser "Journalism"

    July 2013
    September 2012
    August 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010
    October 2010
    September 2010
    August 2010
    July 2010
    June 2010
    May 2010
    April 2010
    March 2010
    February 2010
    January 2010
    December 2009
    November 2009
    October 2009
    September 2009
    August 2009
    July 2009
    June 2009
    May 2009
    April 2009
    March 2009
    February 2009
    January 2009
    December 2008
    November 2008
    October 2008
    September 2008
    August 2008
    July 2008
    June 2008
    May 2008
    April 2008
    March 2008
    February 2008
    January 2008
    December 2007
    November 2007
    October 2007
    September 2007
    August 2007
    July 2007
    June 2007
    May 2007
    April 2007
    March 2007
    February 2007
    January 2007
    December 2006
    November 2006
    October 2006
    September 2006
    August 2006
    July 2006
    June 2006
    May 2006
    April 2006
    March 2006
    February 2006
    January 2006
    December 2005
    November 2005
    October 2005
    September 2005
    August 2005
    June 2005
    May 2005
    April 2005
    March 2005
    February 2005
    January 2005
    December 2004
    November 2004

    Google

    Olbermann Watch Masthead

    Managing Editor

    Robert Cox
    olby at olbywatch dot com

    Contributors

    Mark Koldys
    Johnny Dollar's Place

    Brandon Coates
    OlbyWatch

    Chris Matthews' Leg
    Chris Matthews' Leg

    Howard Mortman
    Extreme Mortman

    Trajan 75
    Think Progress Watch

    Konservo
    Konservo

    Doug Krile
    The Krile Files

    Teddy Schatz
    OlbyWatch

    David Lunde
    Lundesigns

    Alex Yuriev
    Zubrcom

    Red Meat
    OlbyWatch



    Technorati Links to OlbyWatchLinks to OlbermannWatch.com

    Technorati Links to OlbyWatch Blog posts tagged with "Olbermann"

    Combined Feed
    (OlbyWatch + KO Mini-blog)

    Who Links To Me


    Mailing List RSS Feed
    Google Groups
    Subscribe to Olbermann Watch Mailing List
    Email:
    Visit this group



    XML
    Add to Google
    Add to My Yahoo!
    Subscribe with Bloglines
    Subscribe in NewsGator Online

    Add to My AOL
    Subscribe with Pluck RSS reader
    R|Mail
    Simpify!
    Add to Technorati Favorites!

    Subscribe in myEarthlink
    Feed Button Help


    Olbermann Watch, "persecuting" Keith since 2004


    February 13, 2005
    A Guckert By Any Other Name: KO Charge Taken Apart

    Following up on KO's sarcastic story the other night, Feb 10, about Jeff Gannon not being a real reporter, and all the lame jokes about "we can all be cowboys", by KO, Robert Cox at The National Debate and also of this site has written a devastating commentary debunking this fake name charge once and for all. I am posting it with his permission from the TND site, because I feel it really puts the fake name question into perspective. The fake name is the only "evidence" KO had to belittle Gannon, much like the rest of the liberal blogosphere.

    "A Guckert By Any Other Name" follows:

    A Guckert By Any Other Name Is Still A Guckert
    Much has been made by lefty bloggers of Jeff Gannon/James Guckert, formerly of Talon News, gaining access to White House briefings. Some have dwelled on Guckert's registration of suggestive internet domain names to claim that Guckert is a homosexual or a purveyor of "gay porn" and therefore a hypocrite for advancing a right-wing agenda; this hypocrisy from many of the same liberal bloggers who promote a gay-rights agenda that would criticize targeting anyone for being gay and an ACLU agenda that actively defends purveyors of pornography including so-called gay porn. Some have dwelled on conspiracy theories short on facts and long on fantasy. Most, however, have focused on James Guckert's use of the nom de plume "Jeff Gannon".

    Many on the left, and in the MSM, have done their Inspector Renault impersonation and profess to be "shocked" that a journalist would publish under a pseudonym.

    The irony here runs thick.

    The lead attack dog on "GannonGate" has been David Brock of Media Matters for America. This is the same David Brock, self-proclaimed member of the vast right-wing conspiracy, who served as attack dog on various Clinton-era scandals including "TrooperGate" and now works for uber-lefty and world famous financier George Schwartz.

    Never heard of him? Perhaps you know him better by his "fake name" - George Soros.

    Entertainers have long changed their names for a variety of reasons. Some have sought to de-ethnicize their names: Allen Konigsberg became Woody Allen, Alphonso D'Abruzzo became Alan Alda, Jacob Cohen became Rodney Dangerfield and Bob Zimmerman became Bob Dylan. Some sought to glamorize their name including Frances Ethel Gumm (Judy Garland), James Bumgarner (James Garner) and Marion Morrison (John Wayne). Lawrence Tureaud, Cherilyn LaPierre, Maria Rosario Pilar Martinez Molina Baeza, and Paul Hewson all opted for just one name: Mr. T, Cher, Charo and Bono respectively. Thomas Mapother, Todd Jones, Demetria Guynes and Jo Tejada have found success as Tom Cruise, James Earl Jones, Demi Moore and Raquel Welch

    A raft of politically active entertainers use fake names including Ramon Estevez (Martin Sheen), Moran Cho (Margaret Cho), David Van Cortland (David Crosby), and Moby (Richard Hall).

    Funeral services were held yesterday for actor activist, Ossie Davis, born Raiford Chatman Davis. His wife, Ruby Dee, was born Ruby Ann Wallace.

    Tonight on the Grammy Award's ceremony Eric Bishop and Alicia Cook will sing a few Ray Robinson tunes. In other words, Alicia Keys and Jamie Foxx will honor Ray Charles by singing a duet. The music world is full of fake names. Eileen Edwards became Shania Twain, Robert Hall became Bob Weir. Sean Combs could form his own band by adding Puffy, Puff Daddy and P. Diddy to his act. Dana Owens is not really royalty but she will be hosting the Grammies tonight under her assumed name.

    Besides the Queen of Latifah, many world leaders down have adopted pseudonyms. Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili may have had the Russian version of the WWF in mind when he took the name "man of steel" and became Joseph Stalin. Doroteo Aranga became "Pancho" Villa. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi became Mahatma Gandhi then just "Gandhi". Josip Broz Tito when straight to "Tito". Adolf Schickelgruber Hiedler did Schickelgrubers all over the world a favor by changing his name to Adolf Hitler before marching off on his murderous march towards world domination. Nguyen That Thanh became Ho Chi Minh and got his own mountain trail named after him - and later a city.

    Could peace in the middle east been achieved sooner if Abder Rauf Arafat al-Kudwa al-Husseini broken bread with Ariel Shinerman in Jerusalem? The world may never know but as Yasser Arafat and Ariel Sharon the answer is definitely "no". Long before Sharon appeared on the Israeli political scene, Golda Mabovitz had become Golda Meir.

    Karol Wojtyla took the name John Paul II when he became Pope and Ras Tafari Makonnen became Haile Selasse, Emperor of Ethiopia and leader of the Rastafarian faith.

    In a twist, Carmen Electra of American Idol fame changed her name from Tara Patrick before modeling nude for Playboy. With the name available, it was adopted by Linda Ann Hopkins who then changed her fake name "Tara" to "Tera" to become porn star Tera Patrick. Of course, porn names are notoriously fake: Ron Jeremy was born Ronald Hyatt and Nora Louise Kuzma took the name Traci Lords and starred in 60 porn films in 1985 at the age of 17 although she later renounced her porn past, took only "straight" acting jobs and wrote a book. She kept her porn name.

    Garik Weinstein would likely have become the greatest chess player in the world without changing his name to Garry Kasparov. Araminta Ross would have still guided slaves through the Underground Railroad had she not taken the name Harriet Tubman. The world may never know how Jacob Rubenstein was able to commit murder on live TV but they do know he was using the name Jack Ruby at the time. Of course, every school kid knows that Sam Clemens wrote under the name Mark Twain but how many know that Thomas Lawrence took the name Thomas Shaw to avoid the notoriety he cultivated as Lawrence of Arabia.

    Elijah Poole and Malcolm Little led black Muslims as Elijah Muhammad and Malcolm X. Famous athletes took Muslim names: Lew Alcindor (Kareem Abdul Jabaar), Bobby Moore (Ahmad Rashad), and Cassius Clay (Muhammed Ali)

    U.S. politics is replete with assumed named. Bill Blythe, Tom Wilson, and Hiram Grant entered history as President Williams J. Clinton, President Woodrow Wilson and President Ulysses Grant respectively. Grant, like Harry Truman, added an "S" to his name for marketing reasons: Ulysses S. Grant for "U.S." Grant and Harry S. Truman because, well, how are you going to trust a man with no middle name. For no obvious reason, David Dwight Eisenhower rearranged his name to become Dwight David Eisenhower. John F. Kennedy used his real name to obtain the White House but not all of his girlfriends did; Judith Inmoor is better known as Judith Exner and Norma Jean Mortensen Baker is, of course, Marilyn Monroe.

    Four vice-presidential candidates used altered names: John Fremon ran as John Fremont, Carey Kefauver ran as Estes Kefauver and Robert Shriver ran as Sargent Shriver. Only one man ran as veep with a fake name and won, Henry Wilson, who was born Jeremiah Jones Colbath, but he died before completing his four year term. Wilson got a lot of slack with his fake name; he ran on the Republican Grant-Wilson ticket in 1872, so he was not likely to get many complaints for fiddling with his name from the top of the ticket for reasons noted above and the Democrats had nothing to say at all since they did not even bother to field a candidate that year.

    Frizzell Gray ran for Congress and later became head of the NAACP as Kweisi Mfume and James Janos was elected governor of Minnesota as Jesse Ventura.

    Would basketball players still give an emphatic "YES!" on sinking a jump shot if Marvin Aufrichtig had not become Marv Albert. Could Howard Cohen have had the same impact on the NFL as Howard Cosell? Would the BBC have been as upper-crusty with Alfred Cooke rather than Alistair Cooke? Would Charles Grodinsky have gotten his own cable news talk show without shortening his name to Grodin. Would listeners wait to hear "the rest of the story" from Paul Aurandt rather than Paul Harvey. Would Jim McKay's coverage of terrorism at the 1972 Munich Olympics been diminished if he had introduced himself to viewers as James McManus.

    And let's not forget TV's most famous news anchor, Ted Baxter, was played by Ted Knight, actor and real-life Mayor of Pacific Pallisades, California, who was born Tadeus Konopka.

    Despite the long American tradition of taking on pseudonyms, the left-wing bloggers sought to advance the idea that there was something unusual about James Guckert using the names Jeff Gannon. When the lefty notion that the Bush Administration compromised White House security by granting a press pass to someone under an assumed name collapsed (both Guckert and the White House have stated that Guckert applied for his daily press passes under his legal name) the "smoking gun" became video tapes of White House spokesman Scott McClellan addressing James Guckert as "Jeff".

    By this logic, the MSM is rife with "frauds" such as Myron "Mike" Wallace, Lila "Diane" Sawyer and Mary "Cokie" Roberts none of whom use their given first names. Rupert Murdoch's real first name is Keith. Gerald Rivera went by "Jerry" as kid but changed his name to Geraldo when he began his career in investigative journalism. The patron saint of CBS News, Edward R. Murrow, changed his name from Egbert. CBS News Anchor and morning host, Hannah Storm, kept her first name but changed her last name from Storen at the suggestion of a producer at NBC.

    With all this name changing I am feeling a little left out. I can't decide whether "Mr. C" or "Coxo" works best.

    Anyone know Gaelic for "brains of steel"?


    Posted by Robert Cox | Permalink | Comments (47) | | View blog reactions

    47 Comments

    If there had been no fake name and no connection to gay military porn, the White Hose's part in this would have been no less reprehensible.

    Bush hides from the press like no other president in history. He gives fewer press conferences and you pretty nuch have to sign a loyalty oath to the GOP before you can gain admission to a live appearance.

    At the press conference where Guckert asked Bush the mother of all softballs (quoting a Limbaugh lie about Reid as a premise to his question yet!) there were senior journalists from all the major US and international media. They were displaced by a White House plant. Funny how Bush chose this nobody over all the real press.

    Robert Cox didn't get it. Neither do you. You are both defending the irrelevant and ignoring the indefensible.

    Its all defensible, easily defensible. When you claim Bush was the most secretive President in history, do you forget how hard it was for the press or Congress to get any information out of the Clintons? They would ask for information, and the Clintons would send them a million documents besides the ones that they wanted, then when Congress or the Press complained, they would soberly announce that they had given over thousands of boxes of documents, what do they expect of us? And by so doing avoided all the many criminal complaints against them, completely stonewalling the investigations that sent seventeen of their associates to jail, and 55 out of the country? Now that's secretive.

    And it sure hasn't stopped the Democrats and the press from totally hammering Bush constantly, if that is what you feel was stopped by Gannon's question at the WH press conferences. They somehow have struggled through with unending withering attacks despite the huge interruption that apparently you feel Gannon is.

    Harry Reid, the one who stated that the budget was a "moral" document, that Bush was immoral for the budget he came up with, because he is trying to cut 1% of the budget? I would say that is pretty divorced from reality. And also shamelessly worded to accord with the Democrats new pledge to sound like they have values and "morals". See: Oliver Willis blog on how Dems can market themselves better.

    I guess when you falsely demonize someone over and over like the Press and Democrats have done to Bush for years now, constantly trying to peg the word "liar" on him, after a while you start to believe your own delusions. Most secretive President? Have to sign a loyalty oath to get in? Is that why almost all the reporters that get in are left wing liberals? They are loyal to Bush and his policies?

    Saying Bush is more secretive, that Dems view the budget as a moral document, that Bush controls the media and the left wing press, are all Democrat talking points that hold little truth.

    All this Democratic blather of opinion with little proof or back up facts started with them deluding themselves that Bush was a moron, and yet somehow yanking the strings on not only the Press but on all the American people. Come to think of it, are you not saying this because....nah.

    "With all this name changing I am feeling a little left out. I can't decide whether "Mr. C" or "Coxo" works best.

    Anyone know Gaelic for "brains of steel"?"

    ffull o' cacah :D

    Alan,

    You are right. It doesn't matter that Gannon/Guckert is or is not gay or doing business with someone operating or thinking of operating a gay porn site. It doesn't matter if he used a pen name. It doesn't matter, as others have put forward, that he does not have a degree in journaism or that he worked for an online news services or how many readers Talon News had.

    You get to the real point of the left's concern over Gannon/Guckert that Bush won't play by the MSM's rules.

    Guess what Alan? Who cares?

    Most people don't trust journalists (they are ranked slighly below used-car salesman). People know that every journalist in the White House press corps has dreams of becoming the next Woodward and Bernstein. They are mostly liberals/democrats (90% at last count) and are notoriously hostile to Republicans. Most correspondent's in White House press briefings are grandstanding for the TV camera and trying to impress their colleagues.

    You are upset because there was ONE guy in the room asking Bush softball questions? How about the other 100 people in the room who are little more than an extension of the Democratic Party? If you don't like the White House credentialing people with an obvious partisan agenda where has this concern been over the past few decades when the agenda was almost entirely a left-wing/democratic agenda?

    The White House is permitted to credential whomever they want and once a person is in the room they have a right to ask a question like anyone else. It's called free speech. If you don't like who the White House is credentialing there IS a solution. Help move the Democratic party towards the center of where American politics is today and elect a President from your own party. Until then shut up and do as your told.

    Do we think it's okay for the WH to credential journalists who make a habit of being paid for sex? Last I checked, many of the press corps. are liberal, none of them are prostitutes; which last I checked is still illegal every where but Nevada.

    got any evidence on that, M?

    Here's the proof right here--

    http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/02/man-called-jeff.html

    Seems like pretty HARD evidence to me. You know, it gives a whole new meaning to the words "media whores". $200 an hour, $1200 for the weekend.

    Here's the proof right here--

    http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/02/man-called-jeff.html

    Seems like pretty HARD evidence to me. You know, it gives a whole new meaning to the words "media whores". $200 an hour, $1200 for the weekend.

    If this is all legit, it explains why Gannnon/Guckert wanted to drop off the face of the earth so quickly. I've been spouting off about right-wing hypocrisy; just think about the pressure THIS dude was under. Talk about conflicted. I feel sorry for him, except for the fact that he was so eager to shill for the WH. This certainly would explain why so few conservative journalists want this story to do anything but go away.

    Thanks Mia. Didn't have a chance to check back in until now. The WH better hope no one on staff was paying for this guys "services" and handing out favors in the form of a daily press pass.

    "The WH better hope no one on staff was paying for this guys "services" and handing out favors in the form of a daily press pass."


    Might want to try and focus all the brain cells on the matter, M.

    That little scenario would be one of the "best case" ones.

    Paul,

    Hypocrisy and murder MIGHT get you ten years in sing-sing...

    However, if this guy turns out to have worked for the CIA in some sort of ...ahem.... capacity... then all bets are off.

    C,

    I agree, I just wasn't ready to go there yet. I've been called a left-wing loon enough on this site to know not to beat my head against that wall again.

    I'm sure he's a whore, not so sure about him being a CIA operative. I guess we'll see.

    And "focus all my brain cells"...wtf?

    M,

    You're right, we'll have to wait and see.

    In one interview the guy said he had had a born again religious experience in the last few years. If so, he would would have done better to have admitted he'd been less than saintly in the past instead of saying he was obtaining domain names for someone else --- 'It's my friend's pot, officer. Swear...'

    As it stands now, he's just going to have to ...eh....hang there.... until the flow of revelations is spent...and then maybe he can try and clean things up... and have a cigarette... and I'll shut up now... :D

    Yes, it appears he was a gay prostitute. Looks pretty sleazy to me. You got him. Congratulations.

    Now we know why he lied and quit so fast.

    Napa,

    Not to worry. With what you're going to see, as to the treatment of people, based on the noble cause of "truth-seeking". You're going to be congratulating yourself that you're standing where you're standing.

    Trust me on that one, my dear.

    Thanks C, I did defend him too vigorously, not ignoring the fact that I did mention that we don't know yet if he is lying. But he is lying, and that is a real problem as far as his credibility, although I can understand why he lied.

    I do think it is a little weird for liberals (maybe not you Paul) to be so "on it" about condemning him for being gay and a prostitute, the latter of which they usually defend as "ought to be legal" victimless crime.

    Also, I suppose that we could research the liberal press reporters and find one that faked a degree and sold drugs in college or something, but what would be the point? This is the gotcha game. What have we gained here?

    I hope that McClellan can find another conservative reporter that will represent the interests of half of America in there.

    I find it interesting that the media are staying far, far away from this story. This man obviously had to clear security to get a press pass, even the "day" pass (which was apparently permanent) to get into the White House press pool. Shouldn't this be a question about national security? What if this guy had terrorist ties instead of being a male prostitute? Wolf Blitzer and Howard Kurtz have gone to great lengths to spin this story in a way that blames the bloggers for "delving into this poor man's personal life." Gannon/Glukert is no victim here--he just got caught being a lying hypocrite.

    Oh yeah, and for an extra-added bonus, you must read the reviews from "satisfied" customers of Jeffie-boy. And for the record, I could care less what his sexual preference is. But I do have an issue with prostitution because the last time I checked, it was illegal in every state except Nevada.

    NYC,

    Wolf Blitzer and Howard Kurtz may feel threatened by bloggers. At the very least, the blogs are starting to demand some modicum of accountability of the MSM (if not fairness). Trepidation may grow among them as they see comrades (worthy or not) fall victim of their own excesses (not to accuse either Blitzer or Kurtz of being like Guckert, but rather, as humans in a very public profession, being vulnerable to a like fate should they falter in some way). I can't help but think that some who feel above or don't fear such ridicule will step forward to call a "spade a spade." After all, this potentially besmirches journalism as much as it reflects poorly on the WH. One would think that the MSM would want to distance themselves from "Guckertgate" by differentiating rather than ignoring or sugar-coating it. Let's hope that someone musters the courage to press on for answers.

    Napa, I agree with your entire post. And thanks for your acknowlegment. I do wish he weren't gay... or a prostitute. It just injects sexuality into a situation that would be best kept divorced from it. But "peoples is peoples"...there are corrupt gays, too and this guy sure seems to have more than his share of peccadilloes. Just be sure not to indict as closet homophobes, libs simply for jumping on the gay whore thing. Many folks may be perfectly accepting of the gay part, but despise all the deception and are suspicious of the apparent hypocrisy, but it all ends up kinda getting lumped together.

    Political affiliations aside, what an absurd story. Tabloids can scarcely dream up something more salacious or sensational.

    Strap yourselves in, fellow toads...Methinks we're in for one wild ride!

    I think there's a national security question that will surely embarrass the WH.

    But 'hypocrisy' thing is the sort of reasoning I've never gotten. I don't understsand the logic that argues that if you aren't for redefining marriage to include same-sex couples, then having someone who is gay in your family, among your friends, on your payroll (I'm not talking about Guckert), or living in the same apartment building...makes you a hypocrite.

    Not to mention the faulty reasoning and outright antagonism towards freedom of thought that would lurk behind calling someone a hypocrite if they are gay and hold the opinion that such a redefinition stretches marriage into a shape that does not serve society in general or gay culture in particular.

    Welllll...all protestations aside... I think it's obvious to all of us why Blitzer and Kurtz tread gingerly and why anyone else would want, at the very least, to appear like they aren't slathering at the bit to get the goods on the political opposition.

    It's the sort of situation that could well blow up in one's face and make WH incompetence pale and make even a cover-up of a 'valued staffer and friend' look positively glowing next to perceived political ruthlessness.

    Napa- for once I agree with you. I really wish this whole scandal wasn't focused around the homosexuality and sex. It detracts from the larger issues at hand. Like national security and the role of the MSM in delivering accurate information to the public. In its attempt to be all things to all people, the MSM seems to have gotten itself in quite a conundrum-- everyone is pissed off. The right has been screaming about liberal bias, and the left feels the exact opposite. It's seems implausible to me that the MSM could get this so wrong that they would end up infuriating both sides, but that certainly seems to be the case. Both sides are angry, and the MSM seems to be losing credibilty exponentially, and at lightening speed.

    For what it's worth, this issue with Gannon and sex isn't just a problem with the Dems. One only needs to look back at 1998 to see the Republican version of the very same thing. Do we really have such short memories that we've forgotten about the whole Clenis� spectacle put on by the Republican leadership? Unfortunately, personal attacks (particularly those having to with sexual escapades) are a powerful and tantalizing way of playing political hardball...and it was the Republicans that taught us that lesson.

    M,

    There's lots of people you can credit for the Clinton/Lewinsky matter. Conservative handlers for talking Paula Jones into seeking damages for harassment in order to embarrass the president. The Supreme Court for later ruling that private citizens can sue a sitting president. Tripp for taping Lewinsky trying to persuade her to give false testimony in the civil suit. Clinton best friend, Vernon Jordan for setting it up for Lewinsky to see an attorney and sign that false affadavit. The then U.N. ambassador Bill Richards, for personally going to Lewinsky's apartment to interview her for a job. And the president of the U.S. using every bit of state craft that he could in order to cover a personal indiscression. An on the job indiscretion that president, who is an attorney himself, had the utter lack of judgement and arrogance to begin in the first place when it's ground zero in such a harassment suit to prove that the defendant looks for love in all the wrong places.

    And maybe you can thank Democrats too for refusing to enact legislation that would have put limits on such a wide-open discovery process against defendants in such cases.

    There's plenty of credit/blame to go around...

    oh, and you know the reason this president gave for so compromising himself, for handing his enemies his own petard, for his wife having to go on national tv and vouch that he'd never use an intern that way? For a 53 year old man using a 22 year old upaid volunteer like an ash tray?

    "Because I could".

    C,

    "There's plenty of credit/blame to go around..."

    Um...yes, that was my point. That Napa had taken to attacking the Dems as though they had a monopoly on "sexgate". my argument is that it's both sides, and it is an ugly consequence of politicial hardball. hence the statement "For what it's worth, this issue with Gannon and sex isn't just a problem with the Dems."

    see, it's right there in plain view...PROBLEM and DEMS in the same sentence, meaning, the Dems are engaging in this behavior as well. I didn't launch into analysis of monicagate because I'd rather leave the Clenis� spectacle in the past, where it belongs.

    When I said "...it was the republicans that taught us that lesson", I was specifically referring to the practice of using sexual indiscretions as a means for injuring your political opponent, and how effective it can be as a political strategy.

    M,

    Perhaps you ought to ask Clarence Thomas that question. He might tell you it's not always effective against a foe, but it certainly hurts like hell.

    Or maybe you should ask Wilbur Mills.

    Or perhaps not. He's dead.

    C,

    Well, if you want to split hairs, then I suppose you're right. One can always dig up an exception to the rule. As you have done with Wilbur Mills. But that's not really the point is it? I said it was an effective and persuasive tool, not a bullet proof strategy.

    And you're Clarence Thomas example doesn't exactly fit, he wasn't running for public office. The politics of Judicial Nominees is a whole other ball game.

    No, this isn't a whole nother ball game and it's not hair-splitting. It's the point YOU made:

    "it was the republicans that taught us that lesson", I was specifically referring to the practice of using sexual indiscretions as a means for injuring your political opponent, and how effective it can be as a political strategy.

    C,
    No, the point I made was that it was an effective tool for injuring political opponents in the realm of electoral politics. Judicial nominations are not electoral politics. Judicial nominations are of course political, but it isn't an elected position, they're appointed and voted on by politicians that are elected officials. It's a very different political dynamic, and not at all what I was talking about.

    M,

    No, you were talking about nailing political opponents with sexual indiscretions and inanely intimating that this age-old trick was something coined by Republicans.

    I mentioned a case of it against a Republican that occured before Clinton (there's more throughout history...on both sides), so now YOU are hair-splitting by trying to make some sort of distinction between ideological opponents in the legislative branch and executive branch with those who are nominated for the judicial branch.

    C,
    No, I was talking about electoral politics. I'm fairly certain I know what I was talking about becuase I'm the one who typed it out with my own little fingers.

    And I in no way intimated that "this age-old trick was something coined by Republicans."

    What is said was that it is an effective tool, and the Republicans taught us that. what I meant was that they did a fair amount of political damage with the Clenis scandal. And that the Dems are doing the same thing now, or trying to. I wasn't placing blame. I was directing my comments at Napa, and for whatever reason, you've decided to take up the cause by spending all day trying to tell me what I meant to say. I know, why don't you sign in as "m" and then you can just type my comments for me and we can avoid this ridiculous argument in the future: "no, you didn't mean what you said...you really meant what I think you said" and "it doesn't matter if you clarify it for me and tell me otherwise, you still meant what I think you said"

    Fine, C, have it your way. I meant what YOU said rather than what I actually said. You win.

    Ladies,

    "no, you didn't mean what you said...you really meant what I think you said" and "it doesn't matter if you clarify it for me and tell me otherwise, you still meant what I think you said"

    Alas, my head spins. But this does remind me of one of my most favoritest Rummie quotes ever.

    As we know,
    There are known knowns.
    There are things we know we know.
    We also know
    There are known unknowns.
    That is to say
    We know there are some things
    We do not know.
    But there are also unknown unknowns,
    The ones we don't know
    We don't know.

    God love you both.

    You kids, I am gone for one day and look at all this spatting about. Everyone to bed without supper.

    You too Paul, you're in the most trouble for trying to help. Sorry, that's the way it works, I don't write the rules I just work here.

    Well, good grief, guys. I've had more intense exchanges with Napa.

    What? Two women disagree and we're ten seconds from hair pulling?

    To continue, M, I know exactly what you're trying to say and it's just what I have interpreted. My point is that Democrats didn't need a lesson in using sexual piccadiloes against political enemies they were already old hands at it. It's an age-old tactic, not a rediscovered one...

    And frankly that scenario doesn't begin to address the issues of the Clinton case and his flouting of the law, so it's moot anyway.

    Too, if you want to describe the investigation into Guckert as being about Democrats trying to use sexual indiscretions as a tool to harm a political opponent, I'd think you'll have some arguement with many of the folks on your own side.

    But hey...if you want to characterize a national security issue in that manner...I'm sure you'll find a great many conservatives and libertarians just itching to agree with you...

    So that's about it.

    Now calm down, gentlemen. :D

    ok, have at it, I got lost...


    Here's an interesting letter to Jonah Goldberg that Goldberg shared on National Review's blogsite "The Corner".


    GANNONGATE [Jonah Goldberg]

    I don't agree with all this or even most of it, but this is a civil and honest case from the other side. It's not the first one I've received but they are a distinct minority amidst the many emails on the subject:

    Jonah: You are probably getting deluged with e-mails from leftists like me, so I want to make one point. I want to focus on what I think the importance of the story is to you as an independent journalist and conservative.
    Forget the gay stuff. Forget the alleged conservative hypocrisy. Forget speculative (and absurd, to me) Monica parallels. Forget the fact he was a bad writer. Even forget Plame for now, until we hear more.

    The scandal is the fact that Gannon was an administration shill given unprecedented access to the press briefings. Note that being an administration shill is quite different from being a conservative largely sympathetic to the administration (which I assume you are). The purpose of a free and independent press is to act as the watchdog to power, to question and examine the government. A true independent conservative journalist isn't there to toss softballs to the administration -- the administration has plenty of avenues to get its point across. A true independent conservative would press points where he or she felt the administration was not doing enough or not living up to its rhetoric, on such issues as, say, federal spending, faith-based initiatives, troop support, or whatever else you are interested in. It is OK and probably unavoidable to be biased, or even partisan, in favor of the administration, but it is a scandal to pretend to be independent when you are an arm of the administration.

    Gannon is a scandal because he was a fraud, an administration plant. All of his questions were designed not to shed light on issues of importance to conservatives per se, but rather to boost and support the administration. The scandal is that he was posing as something he was not, an independent journalist.

    You might be behind the curve, but check out the revelations that Gannon got into the press room before the supposedly independent "Talon" ever existed. It appears his only affiliation at the time was with the GOPUSA website. It appears that he was given a hard pass, even before "Talon" ever existed. (Even if the hard pass was not issued, he was routinely issued a day pass, which amounts to the same thing.)

    We don't know how Gannon got into the room. How did a non-journalist, not affiliated with any news organization, get a coveted press pass? (Remember, even if you consider Talon a legitimate news organization and not a site devoted to cut-and-paste summaries of administration and GOP press releases and talking points, Gannon was allowed in before Talon existed. Compare with Maureen Dowd's column today concerning her inability to get a pass issued.) Someone pulled strings, circumvented the rules, because they knew Gannon would be an appendage to the administration. He was given favorable treatment specifically because he was NOT an independent journalist. As an independent journalist yourself, doesn't this cause concern to you? When seen in the larger context of Armstrong Williams et al and the fake newscasts the administration circulated, wouldn't this pattern of misleading and non-disclosed administration propaganda posing as independent journalism constitute a fairly big scandal, regardless of who is President? You are in the class of people who should be most concerned, if you value the perception of being independent, because the more that instances of stealth propaganda emerge, the more that all pro-administration journalists will be called into question, fairly or not.

    Then you have all the lies. Gannon lied about his relationship to the websites, lied about first attending the briefings under the aegis of Talon, about not getting a hard pass, and other things. All of this strongly points to some sort of cover up. It is hard to avoid suspicion that he is covering up who gave him permission to enter the press briefings and his other ties to the administration.

    I am somewhat appalled by the focus on the gay prostitute angle, especially the glee and mocking coming from some on the left, and I think efforts to pose this as conservative hypocrisy instead of administration propaganda misses the mark. This isn't a liberal or conservative scandal at all. It is a scandal that points to the erosion of the free and independent press.

    For backup of the claims that Gannon was given a hard press pass (apparently solid, but not 100%) before Talon existed, or at least was at press briefings before Talon existed (100%), see these Kos diaries:

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/2/16/155840/912 (Gannon in briefings before Talon existed)

    http://dailykos.com/story/2005/2/17/125328/435 (hard pass)

    Also check out Blumenthal in Salon today, and see what you think: http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2005/02/17/gannon_affair/

    C, I think this says it all. Of course, you know I agree. I've made some of the same points here, but not as well. Thanks.

    Well, I think the "freedom of the press" issue is just ridiculous and the "propaganda" thing as well. Someone here blogged a list of guestions Gannon had asked in briefing and I thought the majority of them were pertinent. I don't think there's any conflict of interest for a reporter to set-up a question by saying, 'Your opponents say such and such...given this circumstance...what do you reply?'

    This was done pretty consistently during the Clinton impeachment hearings when the president was asked in press conferences about some of the charges/comments by the Republican "managers". No one thought anything of it.

    If posing questions like that means you are biased or not "speaking truth to power" (please...) then anyone who would try to defend Keith Olbermann needs to consider and to admit that he lobs such questions in all his interviews. Again, I'm not saying that Gannon wasn't an obvious partisan, but this site is dedicated to a guy, who is called a "news anchor", who mirrors Gannon's M.O.

    Too, I've already articulated the lack of logic and inherent stereoytyping that is behind labeling someone a hypocrite for taking a stand against certain social issues yet having gay friends, colleagues, employees, family. It's as though the left insists that anyone who has traditional religious views of homosexuality or isn't for changing gay marriage, is a hypocrite if they aren't actively stoning every gay person they encounter.

    And that sort of blinkered view of opponents is ultimately where the left will be disappointed in this whole Gannon matter. I was reading a leftwinger who blogged on his site that the smart and cunning tactic for democrats would be not to hesitate in playing up the gay prostitute angle because this is what will promote dissention and enmity in the ranks of conservatives/libertarins/Republicans. And of course, this is what those smart Machivellian Republicans would do.

    But this blogger is doomed to disappointment because the guy doesn't understand the right and has laid so much of baggage of his own confabulating upon his opponents.

    If it comes out that this guy was a friend of the administration or lover of some staffer, religious folks aren't going to get pissed off that there happened to be a gay staffer in the WH or that a gay person was a plant by the administration. That's not going to sow dissention, it'll cause embarrassment, disappointment, and some justifiable calls for the resignation of those involved. And life will go on and the left will label us hypocrites for not calling for the vivisection of any gay person involved or abandoning the Bush administration who KNOWS GAY PEOPLE...even gay hookers.

    The left would do much better against us, if their leaders, who aren't the rank and file were mature and confident enough not to make every political opponent into a character from cartoon planet.

    That might go far in winning more statehouse elections. If not in getting a president in the WH.

    Here here, Cecilia, good post. And pray tell me what is an "independent" journalist? Is Maureen Dowd an independent journalist, is Helen Thomas or Christiane Amanpour?

    I was just thinking this morning about how the Clintons foisted that idiot liberal shill Gene Lyons on the whole country, along with Joe Conason. Lyons was a nobody reporter on a small town newspaper that made a deal to defend Clinton no matter what, no matter how stupid, and the Clintons paid him in exclusive access, therefore giving him information no one else had. Syndicates then picked up his column because he had a direct line to the WH, and we have been abused by him ever since.

    I thought of it because my hometown paper is still printing his liberal spin columns, he reads like DU without the class and facts. How much did he get "paid" in career advancement by the Clintons? Would he qualify as an independent journalist?

    "Someone here blogged a list of guestions Gannon had asked in briefing and I thought the majority of them were pertinent." They make perfect sense to repubs but when press conferences become simply a means to output the ruling party's talking points, the entire concept of "free" press is negated. I wanna' to know how Guckert got in. I think he's a GOP shill and a liar. I don't have definitive proof of the former and if proven wrong, I'll admit it here, but the guy smells bad.

    "...but this site is dedicated to a guy, who is called a "news anchor", who mirrors Gannon's M.O." This is a reach at best and at worst, absurd. I know you guys hate Olbermann but REALLY.

    "It's as though the left insists that anyone who has traditional religious views of homosexuality or isn't for changing gay marriage, is a hypocrite if they aren't actively stoning every gay person they encounter."
    -->Please explain the origins of this. I don't hear this from libs I know. Righties can't seem to grasp how someone can hold the "traditional religious" belief that homosexuality is a sin, yet refuse to judge (stone) gays as sinners...or persecute them by constitutionally denying them survivors and other rights that we straight people take for granted. The irony of a conservative alleging liberal absolutism is inescapable. Yet another example of republican projection. Well done, C.

    What is it about forgiveness that many fundies don't get? Why must they judge their peers? Are they without sin? And even if they are, what gives them the right to judge others? Is this not presumptuous, proud and arrogant? You accuse me of "selective paranoia" and "selective outrage". I submit that this is "selective application" of principals taught in the New Testament.

    "The left would do much better against us, if their leaders, who aren't the rank and file were mature and confident enough not to make every political opponent into a character from cartoon planet." --> So the LEFT made Gannon into a liar and a "cartoon figure". Interesting. We gave him press credentials...We posted paramilitary gay escort sites, we stripped him of his clothes. It's the damned liberals and their immature leaders again. Who's confabulating? (More projection).

    Let's cut to the chase. If they find that the WH willingly gave him creds to pose as a shill, it'll be bad for the WH. You can continue to rattle about the more sordid aspects of this case, alleged hypocrisy, homophobia, yada yada yada. But we should forget about who he is and what he does with whom outside the press room. It appears that he shouldn't have been in there and we have a right to know why he was. Please explain why it should be any more complicated than that?

    ME:

    "Someone here blogged a list of guestions Gannon had asked in briefing and I thought the majority of them were pertinent."

    PAUL:
    They make perfect sense to repubs but when press conferences become simply a means to output the ruling party's talking points, the entire concept of "free" press is negated. I wanna' to know how Guckert got in. I think he's a GOP shill and a liar. I don't have definitive proof of the former and if proven wrong, I'll admit it here, but the guy smells bad.


    **Paul, have you bothered to go back and read what the questions were before you decided they were entirely softballs?

    What have I ever done or said that would make you say that I would only respond to Gannon and his questions in a non-objective manner? Have I ever argued that Gannon was not a shill or that he was anything other than a fishy character?

    So thanks, Paul...the cartoon continues...

    However, though you're sure to take this as a defense of Gannon, let me say too that the statement "the entire concept of the free press is negated" is so over-the-top that it's just laughable. A partisan reporter (even a plant by an administration) is not a threat to the Bill of Rights... What is a "free press" unless it's composed of all sorts of various elements. And to use the H word (hypocrite), I find it very interesting that you wouldn't accept a report from the Washington Times as being objective and that you feel it advocates for the Republican agenda, yet though there has been a WT's reporter in the WH press room forever, and I doubt you've been in Chicken Little mode over the peril to the freedom of the entire press...


    ME:
    "...but this site is dedicated to a guy, who is called a "news anchor", who mirrors Gannon's M.O."

    Paul:
    This is a reach at best and at worst, absurd. I know you guys hate Olbermann but REALLY.

    **On the contrary, asking leading questions designed to provoke a particular response is EXACTLY what Olbermann does in EVERY interview. There is only ONE time that I have seen him play devil's advocate to an interviewee who was an opponent of a particular WH issue or policy and that was when he asked if parents perhaps had a right to teach their children the values that they, themselves held.

    ME:
    It's as though the left insists that anyone who has traditional religious views of homosexuality or isn't for changing gay marriage, is a hypocrite if they aren't actively stoning every gay person they encounter.


    Paul:
    Righties can't seem to grasp how someone can hold the "traditional religious" belief that homosexuality is a sin, yet refuse to judge (stone) gays as sinners...or persecute them by constitutionally denying them survivors and other rights that we straight people take for granted. The irony of a conservative alleging liberal absolutism is inescapable. Yet another example of republican projection. Well done, C.

    ** This is utter jibberish. As I've said in the past, Paul, you cannot forgive what you are not offended by. Forgiveness implies offense. The majority of liberals do not feel homosexuality is sinful. Republicans are well aware of this so spare me the saintly liberal tolerance and forgiveness scenarios that Republicans can just never process.... And there's certainly a problem of logic in terming it "persecution" when others fail to champion new rights for groups where none have existed in our history. I don't think Mormons or Muslims are persecuted because they cannot engage in polygamy. Neither are siblings who wish to marry. I doubt anyone would equate THAT with "stoning".

    BTW, Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act and Kerry was against gay marriage, so to use your ridiculous allegory, there's at least two stones cast squarely between the eyes by your side...


    ME:
    The left would do much better against us, if their leaders, who aren't the rank and file were mature and confident enough not to make every political opponent into a character from cartoon planet."

    PAUL:
    So the LEFT made Gannon into a liar and a "cartoon figure". Interesting. We gave him press credentials...We posted paramilitary gay escort sites, we stripped him of his clothes. It's the damned liberals and their immature leaders again. Who's confabulating? (More projection).

    **ehhh, Paul....I never said anything about the left making Gannon into a cartoon character. He did that all by himself... If you'll try reading what I actually wrote, you'll see the statement was in response to a leftwing blogger and his statements about hyping Gannon's sexuality in order to foster dissent among religious conservatives and the WH. When this guy's cartoon images don't respond in the way he thinks... we'll hear the H word...

    PAUL:
    Let's cut to the chase. If they find that the WH willingly gave him creds to pose as a shill, it'll be bad for the WH. You can continue to rattle about the more sordid aspects of this case, alleged hypocrisy, homophobia, yada yada yada. But we should forget about who he is and what he does with whom outside the press room. It appears that he shouldn't have been in there and we have a right to know why he was. Please explain why it should be any more complicated than that?

    **Perhaps you can enlighten me as to when I've ever argued otherwise. As to when I've EVER once suggested that this guy wasn't suspicious and likely a WH plant. Too, I'd like to know when I ever implied in even the most indirect way that an aversion to Gannon would have anything to do with homophobia or hypocrisy by ANYONE!

    It's not me who has made the issue complicated. In fact, I've made it extremely clear-cut. I've said it will be an embarrassment to the WH. That it may lead to justifiable calls for resignations.

    The only "complication" that I've even hinted at is a criminal one that might come about if we find that Gannon was ever on the CIA payroll. You have a problem with THAT, Paul?

    I've agreed with you entirely about Gannon. Where I haven't agreed is in this ridiculous rhetoric about Gannon heralding the end of the first amendment as we know it... And I've taken issue with some of the rhetoric on some blog sites I've seen concerning accusations of hypocrisy and prognostications that are founded on stereotypes that the left have of conservatives.

    Objections to things, which are, in themselves very uncomplicated. In fact they are hyperbolic bullshit that is mind-numbingly simplistic...

    But as for Gannon, I defy you to find one moment where I didn't wholly agree you about him or where I didn't acknowledge the possibility of real wrong being done by the WH. Or where I ever implied homophobia on the part of anyone, let alone the left. Or implied anywhere that the left has made a cartoon out of Gannon, as you have argued by taking my statement entirely out of context.

    I'll tell you right now that you can't. So lay that characterization on some other ideological opponent...

    ME:

    "Someone here blogged a list of guestions Gannon had asked in briefing and I thought the majority of them were pertinent."

    PAUL:
    They make perfect sense to repubs but when press conferences become simply a means to output the ruling party's talking points, the entire concept of "free" press is negated. I wanna' to know how Guckert got in. I think he's a GOP shill and a liar. I don't have definitive proof of the former and if proven wrong, I'll admit it here, but the guy smells bad.


    **Paul, have you bothered to go back and read what the questions were before you decided they were entirely softballs?

    What have I ever done or said that would make you say that I would only respond to Gannon and his questions in a non-objective manner? Have I ever argued that Gannon was not a shill or that he was anything other than a fishy character?

    So thanks, Paul...the cartoon continues...

    However, though you're sure to take this as a defense of Gannon, let me say too that the statement "the entire concept of the free press is negated" is so over-the-top that it's just laughable. A partisan reporter (even a plant by an administration) is not a threat to the Bill of Rights... What is a "free press" unless it's composed of all sorts of various elements. And to use the H word (hypocrite), I find it very interesting that you wouldn't accept a report from the Washington Times as being objective and that you feel it advocates for the Republican agenda, yet though there has been a WT's reporter in the WH press room forever, and I doubt you've been in Chicken Little mode over the peril to the freedom of the entire press...


    ME:
    "...but this site is dedicated to a guy, who is called a "news anchor", who mirrors Gannon's M.O."

    Paul:
    This is a reach at best and at worst, absurd. I know you guys hate Olbermann but REALLY.

    **On the contrary, asking leading questions designed to provoke a particular response is EXACTLY what Olbermann does in EVERY interview. There is only ONE time that I have seen him play devil's advocate to an interviewee who was an opponent of a particular WH issue or policy and that was when he asked if parents perhaps had a right to teach their children the values that they, themselves held.

    ME:
    It's as though the left insists that anyone who has traditional religious views of homosexuality or isn't for changing gay marriage, is a hypocrite if they aren't actively stoning every gay person they encounter.


    Paul:
    Righties can't seem to grasp how someone can hold the "traditional religious" belief that homosexuality is a sin, yet refuse to judge (stone) gays as sinners...or persecute them by constitutionally denying them survivors and other rights that we straight people take for granted. The irony of a conservative alleging liberal absolutism is inescapable. Yet another example of republican projection. Well done, C.

    ** This is utter jibberish. As I've said in the past, Paul, you cannot forgive what you are not offended by. Forgiveness implies offense. The majority of liberals do not feel homosexuality is sinful. Republicans are well aware of this so spare me the saintly liberal tolerance and forgiveness scenarios that Republicans can just never process.... And there's certainly a problem of logic in terming it "persecution" when others fail to champion new rights for groups where none have existed in our history. I don't think Mormons or Muslims are persecuted because they cannot engage in polygamy. Neither are siblings who wish to marry. I doubt anyone would equate THAT with "stoning".

    BTW, Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act and Kerry was against gay marriage, so to use your ridiculous allegory, there's at least two stones cast squarely between the eyes by your side...


    ME:
    The left would do much better against us, if their leaders, who aren't the rank and file were mature and confident enough not to make every political opponent into a character from cartoon planet."

    PAUL:
    So the LEFT made Gannon into a liar and a "cartoon figure". Interesting. We gave him press credentials...We posted paramilitary gay escort sites, we stripped him of his clothes. It's the damned liberals and their immature leaders again. Who's confabulating? (More projection).

    **ehhh, Paul....I never said anything about the left making Gannon into a cartoon character. He did that all by himself... If you'll try reading what I actually wrote, you'll see the statement was in response to a leftwing blogger and his statements about hyping Gannon's sexuality in order to foster dissent among religious conservatives and the WH. When this guy's cartoon images don't respond in the way he thinks... we'll hear the H word...

    PAUL:
    Let's cut to the chase. If they find that the WH willingly gave him creds to pose as a shill, it'll be bad for the WH. You can continue to rattle about the more sordid aspects of this case, alleged hypocrisy, homophobia, yada yada yada. But we should forget about who he is and what he does with whom outside the press room. It appears that he shouldn't have been in there and we have a right to know why he was. Please explain why it should be any more complicated than that?

    **Perhaps you can enlighten me as to when I've ever argued otherwise. As to when I've EVER once suggested that this guy wasn't suspicious and likely a WH plant. Too, I'd like to know when I ever implied in even the most indirect way that an aversion to Gannon would have anything to do with homophobia or hypocrisy by ANYONE!

    It's not me who has made the issue complicated. In fact, I've made it extremely clear-cut. I've said it will be an embarrassment to the WH. That it may lead to justifiable calls for resignations.

    The only "complication" that I've even hinted at is a criminal one that might come about if we find that Gannon was ever on the CIA payroll. You have a problem with THAT, Paul?

    I've agreed with you entirely about Gannon. Where I haven't agreed is in this ridiculous rhetoric about Gannon heralding the end of the first amendment as we know it... And I've taken issue with some of the rhetoric on some blog sites I've seen concerning accusations of hypocrisy and prognostications that are founded on stereotypes that the left have of conservatives.

    Objections to things, which are, in themselves very uncomplicated. In fact they are hyperbolic bullshit that is mind-numbingly simplistic...

    But as for Gannon, I defy you to find one moment where I didn't wholly agree you about him or where I didn't acknowledge the possibility of real wrong being done by the WH. Or where I ever implied homophobia on the part of anyone, let alone the left. Or implied anywhere that the left has made a cartoon out of Gannon, as you have argued by taking my statement entirely out of context.

    I'll tell you right now that you can't. So lay that characterization on some other ideological opponent...

    **Paul, have you bothered to go back and read what the questions were before you decided they were entirely softballs?
    --> Yes, Dear. And I never said they were ENTIRELY softballs, nor did you contend all were pertinent. But there are enough examples of "softballs" that repub claims that "Gannon" could be seen as merely a right-leaning journalist are meager. To wit, (Gannon to Bush): "Senate Democratic leaders have painted a very bleak picture of the US economy, [Minority Leader] Harry Reid was talking about soup lines, and Hillary Clinton was talking about the economy being on the verge of collapse. Yet, in the same breath, they say that Social Security is rock solid and there's no crisis there. How are you going to work -- you said you're going to reach out to these people -- how are you going to work with people who seem to have divorced themselves from reality?"

    As it turned out, Reid had never talked about soup lines. That was a phrase attributed to him in satire by Rush Limbaugh on his radio show.

    http://outdoorsbest.zeroforum.com/zerothread?id=304852

    This is but one of many examples of "Gannon's" hard-hitting right-wing journalism. Guckert routinely presents Repub talking points and rhetoric straight from righty pundits (e.g. Rush) to preface questions that bolster the WH agenda. Time and again the WH has gone to him to avoid a prickly subject. Does this negate the free press? I guess not. You caught me in fit of self-righteous indignation. It's more accurate to say that it "augments" the perception or concept of a free press by injecting (if they're found culpable) WH-sponsored propaganda disguised as legitimate media coverage into the pressroom . If this is truly sanctioned by the WH, they aren't being forthright and must answer for it. That you haven't contended Guckert to be more than a shill is to your credit. I didn't mean to paint you with that brush. Yet, when you say that after reading his questions you think them pertinent, some may feel you think he's a credible (albeit conservative) journalist.

    "What have I ever done or said that would make you say that I would only respond to Gannon and his questions in a non-objective manner? Have I ever argued that Gannon was not a shill or that he was anything other than a fishy character??"
    --> Not to my recollection. Did I make such a statement?

    "And to use the H word (hypocrite)" --> Where? I mentioned "alleged hypocrisy" in response to YOUR statement: "And life will go on and the left will label us hypocrites."

    "Paul.... I never said anything about the left making Gannon into a cartoon character. He did that all by himself..." --> Sorry I misinterpreted you.

    "If you'll try reading what I actually wrote, you'll see the statement was in response to a leftwing blogger and his statements about hyping Gannon's sexuality in order to foster dissent among religious conservatives and the WH. When this guy's cartoon images don't respond in the way he thinks... we'll hear the H word..."
    -->You may be right. I dunno what he'll say. I didn't read him.

    "On the contrary, asking leading questions designed to provoke a particular response is EXACTLY what Olbermann does in EVERY interview".
    -->In principle, your point has merit. But that you think doing so to a relatively small cable TV audience (albeit on a national network) is akin to doing so as a credentialed rep of the WH news corps in the Press Room is an distinction I must make. Further, if Olby's wrong to do it within MSNBC's venue, does that mitigate Guckert's culpability? Not to me.

    "And there's certainly a problem of logic in terming it "persecution" when others fail to champion new rights for groups where none have existed in our history. -->Like voter's rights for women and blacks, or child labor laws? Denying such rights in the past weren't deemed unconstitutional? RE: the Mormons, you may not think that those who want to practice faith-based polygamy don't feel persecuted by our government, but you'd be wrong. They don't like it a bit. I've seen it on TV, so it's gotta be true! Not that I feel this is comparable to granting a lifelong partner survivor's rights in the face of losing their mate. (My subjective opinion). I agree with you that we should rely on civil unions to cover that. But I differ from anyone who supports the need to constitutionally define marriage. I think you'd be surprised at how many libs feel homosexuality is Biblically prohibited or at least discouraged, yet feel it's not their part to judge them. I'm no saint and I don't mean to preach/lecture, it's merely my opinion. If you disagree, that's your right.

    "It's not me who has made the issue complicated. In fact, I've made it extremely clear-cut. I've said it will be an embarrassment to the WH. That it may lead to justifiable calls for resignations.--> I wasn't singling you out and yes, I believe you did.

    "The only "complication" that I've even hinted at is a criminal one that might come about if we find that Gannon was ever on the CIA payroll. You have a problem with THAT, Paul? --> No, I don't.

    Thanks.

    Enjoyed your post, Paul. I only have one bone of contention. Sexuality has never been defined as an immutable characteristic like gender and race. To label as persecutory, a reluctance to venture out into that territory, is an argument based on emotional appeal and emotional rhetoric rather than careful consideration of the issue.

    George Bush says he's for civil unions. The marriage amendment is a reaction to judicial incursion into an area that has been historically mediated by legislatures. Though Kedwards was against a constitutional amendment, they both decried an activist judiciary in this area.

    So again, if you define being against gay marrige as persecutory then you're talking about a great many legislators on your own side and a great many traditional Democrats in general. So focusing on the Christian right, seem rather convenient...

    "Sexuality has never been defined as an immutable characteristic like gender and race." Does this mean there can't be protection for such traits under law? I don't see why...we just haven't gotten there yet, just as we hadn't protected certain women's rights before the women's movement convinced us we must. One's religion isn't immutable either and religion is constitutionally protected. And I don't want to see the Constitution sullied by an ammendment that flies in the face of seperation of church and state.

    We argue about whether sexual preference is changable. Some claim it is and others disagree. You're right, concrete evidence of its immutability dosn't exist. Neither does irrefutable evidence to the contrary, however, studies do show that environment plays a key role. That doesn't mean that those who possess an alternative or minority sexual preference that repels or scares many in the majority should be denied rights afforded the rest of us. Argue it without resorting to religion and I'll listen.

    These are my opinions. And in my minute circle of influence, some agree with me and others don't. I don't intend to speak for all liberals, the DNC, for Christians, Catholics, other straights or for gays...just for this 52-year old, tired, white, overweight, straight liberal Catholic male.

    Thanks, C.

    Oh goodness, Paul, it is easily argued as the anthesis of religion-- Darwinism.

    I have argued it on other grounds too. I have argued and you have agreed.... that same sex attraction is not some sort of polar extreme. That people fit at all sorts of points, depending on what occurs in their lives. And that there are men out there and women... especially when they are young... who fit at all points in between. And that they would be much better off, pairing with the opposite sex, having children, and going on from there.
    Better off in terms of continuing society, and better off in terms of disease and life expectancy. That is not to suggest, that we don't tolerant differences. We just don't enshrine them as equivalents.

    BTW: What other human characteristic, besides homosexuality, do many liberals think is "sinful" but tolerate and don't throw stones at...HONESTLY... my friend?...can't be differences of opinion on codifying civil law based on sexuality... can't be opinions on abortion... can't be opinions on the role of govt... can't be opinions on gun control... can't be thoughts on affirmative action...can't be thoughts on Newt Gingrich... :D/...

    "That is not to suggest, that we don't tolerant differences. We just don't enshrine them as equivalents."

    --> There's a difference between tolerating and being tolerant. To tolerate is to merely "put up with." Tolerance is more an acceptance. I choose to accept gays as my human equals and don't consider it an elevation of status or an enshrinement. That's merely giving them the dignity and respect I'd expect were our roles reversed. I mentioned that I prefer to argue this on secular grounds. I like to use "reciprocal human dignity," but can also call on Christianity, since this also is Christ's message, "Do unto others...". And I don't feel it the slightest bit sacriligious or blasphemous to use Christ's teachings to argue FOR gays.

    We are wrong to judge. We can't "pick and choose" who we love in Christ. He even asks us to love our enemies. And if we can love gays, I feel we shouldn't exclude them from rights and protections we enjoy in our society as straights.

    For our society to define marriage as being between one man and one woman is not a judgement on the intrinsic worth of an individual anymore than laws against polygamy are that.

    Society has every right to define it's traditions and institutions in the way it feels best for civilization.

    Frankly, that's the essence of the Golden Rule.