Since you're all so fond of screaming about how KO doesn't check his facts, is it possible for you to hold yourself to your own standards please? Your criticisms of KO are not helped when you substantiate them by blindly repeating ridiculous statement by known liars.

Case in point: On CNN, "Gannon" claimed that Talon News had 700,000 users. (several people here have gone on to repeat that statement as though it is fact). But, Talon is ranked 640,000 on the web. That is, there are roughly 640,000 sites on the web with more traffic than Talon News.

For comparison, Daily Kos, with 365,000 average daily visits, ranks 3,365. Instapundit comes in at 6,918, with about 171,000 average daily visits.

Talon News isn't 700,000 users strong, obviously.

For those that have already seen this post elsewhere on this site, sorry for the repeat post. But I felt compelled to repeat myself after reading this post. Just exactly how much crack do you have to smoke (or alternatively, just how much Kool-Aid do you have to drink) to actually believe that Talon had 700,000 paid subscribers?

First of all, I never said Keith should check his facts, I said his facts are often wrong, which they are. I don't care if he checks his facts and obviously neither does he. He doesn't want the facts because they might get in the way of a good story.

I am accepting what Gannon has said and you have no information to suggest otherwise, except your own biases. It may turn out that Gannon is lying about something, but until then we should withhold judgement. All you detractors have now is your own extreme biases and judgemental attitudes, no facts.

You are not checking your own facts, you are extrapolating from some information that may or may not be related. So please, before you start telling us to check our facts why don't you check your own. You even admit this by saying you are going to "go out on a limb" by what, by making up something you couldn't possibly know at this point. Why don't you "check facts" yourself since that seems to be the club you want to hit other people over the head with?

You also have the facts wrong about what I said and what Gannon said. He said Talon has 700,000 paid subscribers, not users. There are a lot of ways it could have that low of traffic and have 700,000 paid subscribers. I used to write for a web political site that had over 1200 paid subscribers where mostly we got about 40 of them a day to actually come to the site.

The point is you don't know and here you are screaming at us to check our facts when all you are continually doing about this story is making huge assumptions and not checking facts yourself.

The fact that he was a media reporter and reported under a different name is meaningless, a lot of media people do that. His last name sounds funky, I can see why he changed it.

All you really have is that he is conservative when you boil it all down. When the facts come out there may be some things that show him to be dishonest, but so far you have nothing other than destroying the guys life over all your assumptions. Pretty rotten I would say.

It is also pretty amazing to see liberals criticizing a guy for being gay or having gay porno sites, if he even is or did. How hypocritical is that? Liberals always turn out to be the biggest homophobes, its amazing.

Your comments are off the wall and pathetic, I think you should retract them because you are really hurting another person that you truthfully know nothing about, other than that he is conservative.

On this comment:

>>>You have the AUDACITY to compare what this hack was doing to the press coverage of Abu Ghraib and absent WMD?First of all, I never said Keith should check his facts, I said his facts are often wrong, which they are. I don't care if he checks his facts and obviously neither does he. He doesn't want the facts because they might get in the way of a good story.

I am accepting what Gannon has said and you have no information to suggest otherwise, except your own biases. It may turn out that Gannon is lying about something, but until then we should withhold judgement. All you detractors have now is your own extreme biases and judgemental attitudes, no facts.

You are not checking your own facts, you are extrapolating from some information that may or may not be related. So please, before you start telling us to check our facts why don't you check your own. You even admit this by saying you are going to "go out on a limb" by what, by making up something you couldn't possibly know at this point. Why don't you "check facts" yourself since that seems to be the club you want to hit other people over the head with?

You also have the facts wrong about what I said and what Gannon said. He said Talon has 700,000 paid subscribers, not users. There are a lot of ways it could have that low of traffic and have 700,000 paid subscribers. I used to write for a web political site that had over 1200 paid subscribers where mostly we got about 40 of them a day to actually come to the site.

The point is you don't know and here you are screaming at us to check our facts when all you are continually doing about this story is making huge assumptions and not checking facts yourself.

The fact that he was a media reporter and reported under a different name is meaningless, a lot of media people do that. His last name sounds funky, I can see why he changed it.

All you really have is that he is conservative when you boil it all down. When the facts come out there may be some things that show him to be dishonest, but so far you have nothing other than destroying the guys life over all your assumptions. Pretty rotten I would say.

It is also pretty amazing to see liberals criticizing a guy for being gay or having gay porno sites, if he even is or did. How hypocritical is that? Liberals always turn out to be the biggest homophobes, its amazing.

Your comments are off the wall and pathetic, I think you should retract them because you are really hurting another person that you truthfully know nothing about, other than that he is conservative.

On this comment:

>>>You have the AUDACITY to compare what this hack was doing to the press coverage of Abu Ghraib and absent WMD?

The liberal media ran both these stories into the ground and fabricated all kinds of things that they didn't know and weren't there. Gannon asked his readers questions, and yes, I would say the delusions of people like you and the Democrats in the US Senate are a bigger story than than WMD because your delusions are forcing you to not only assume all kinds of things you don't know just to slam conservatives, but they are forcing the Bush government into all kinds of bad positions.

Like wasting money buying armor for vehicles that don't need it, like not sending enough troops to begin out of fear of being accused of imperialism and having a soldier on every corner in Iraq by left wing delusional people such as yourself, like wasting an enormous amount of time and energy trying to prove Bush lied about WMD when he clearly did not, or if he did then so did both Clintons, Gore, and Madeleine Albright, France and Russia, all because of liberal partisan delusions when you should have been spending your time on responsible criticism which we need, instead of all this delusional unfounded stuff like your criticisms of Gannon.

Its ok with me that you liberals are this off the wall, because all it means is that you are going to keep losing elections because your perspective on reality is so out of touch. Thank God most people can see through this nonsense.

All the guy did was be a WH reporter. His only fault is that he is conservative, unlike most of the rest of the WH press corps.

Tell me one real thing this guy did wrong, because there isn't anything that I can see.

Napa, Napa, Napa:

Q: What do conservatives do when cornered?
A: Come up with a dozen new arguments/issues that are scarcely related or even unrelated to the original argument. It's classic misdirection, rhetorical sleight of hand.

Q: What is the net effect of this strategy?
A: It causes opponents to veer off course as they try to address all of the new issues, as it galls them to no end. If they can overcome their anger long enough to methodically address each new issue, the original one is obscured or even abandoned. (Dissolve to dream sequence:) Eventually the liberals get ulcers and must use products manufactured by enormous pharmaceutical conglomerates that get gigantic tax breaks from the government as they increase prescription drug costs to pay for advertising, lobbying and a presidential innauguration with money that used to go toward research and development. With less available R&D money, they produce fewer low-margin drugs like antibiotics in favor of those that promise hard and fast returns, like penis-stiffeners. As the elderly and babies die from the flu, republicans like Bob Dole lap up the rod rigidifyers like smitten kittens and the pharmaceutical giants laugh all the way to the bank. Mission accomplished!

"Like wasting money buying armor for vehicles that don't need it (sic--AS IF), like not sending enough troops to begin out of fear of being accused of imperialism and having a soldier on every corner in Iraq by left wing delusional people such as yourself (whoa!), like wasting an enormous amount of time and energy trying to prove Bush lied about WMD when he clearly did not(EEK! Sorry, dude. He/they did. It's on tape), or if he did then so did both Clintons, (AHA, WHOOMP, there it is! Thye "C" word. IT HAD to come up!) Gore, and Madeleine Albright, France and Russia (He's on a roll!), all because of liberal partisan delusions (of course)when you should have been spending your time on responsible criticism (silly liberals, always tilting at windmills) which we need, instead of all this delusional (doubly dillusional now) unfounded stuff like your criticisms of Gannon." (FINALLY ON POINT--WHEW!)

---> Case in point. You want I should rip these apart one by one? I pass. This is patently absurd and I don't want to be "irresponsible" by wasting my valuable criticism. BTW, You left our Bigfoot and global warming.

"I am accepting what Gannon has said and you have no information to suggest otherwise, except your own biases. It may turn out that Gannon is lying about something, but until then we should withhold judgement. All you detractors have now is your own extreme biases and judgemental attitudes, no facts."
--> And your acceptance of his contentions have nothing at all to do with the fact that he's an overtly conservative "journalist," right. "You're biased and I'm not...Nyeah, nyeah." Uh, huh?

You know, if we were able to sit down and hash out this stuff over coffee or a good meal, it would be easier to deal with such half-baked, inflammatory arguments as yours. So much is conveyed non-verbally. But when we have only your caustic diatribes displayed a CRT, it's really hard to ascribe any relevance to them.

Oh, and my absolute, personal favorite is the one about how homophobic we liberals are but you left out our intense hatred of blacks (damn that rap-spewin', hippedy-hoppin' Condi).. To respond with anything more substantive than an insult is to elevate your chronic wind-breaking to some level of legitimacy, and it's just not worth that. Anyone who's read my posts here know how I feel about gays, an' I just love `em. In fact, I've been thinking lately that I might want to BECOME gay, but my gay friends haven't figured out how to turn me. But they're working on it...You know, they're ALWAYS workin' on it (heh, heh)!

Napa,
Please, put down the pipe and stop drinking the Kool-Aid. You're support of Gannon is so blindly loyal that you haven't even taken the time to try to make sense in your arguments. I did check my facts, and actually I've provided them for you above. You didn't dispute the numbers I gave you, so unless you're going to make the claim that I've provided incorrect information, I'm not sure why I should "check my facts."

My point was that people here, you included, often ridicule Olbermann for the very same thing that you are now doing with Gannon: repeating information without giving any thought as to whether what you're repeating is even true. And doing so based solely on partisan political ideology.

With all due respect, I'm not sure who your comments were directed towards. I haven't said anything about Gannon/Guckert other than I think he's a liar. And then I went on to offer some facts about Talon's lack of audience. I'm not sure what caused you to make the statement: "Your comments are off the wall and pathetic, I think you should retract them because you are really hurting another person that you truthfully know nothing about, other than that he is conservative."

I think perhaps you meant to direct your comments to the entire left-leaning blogosphere, and for some reason decided to take out all your frustration here, with people who haven't done any of the things you've suggested above. I've never once made mention of Gannon's sexual preferences, I don't care if he is gay. You are correct that there are many people out there that have taken Gannon to task (in ways that might be very harsh), but I'm not one of them, so let's stop conflating the two shall we?

As for what Gannon did wrong, well, you're so busy drinking the Kool-Aid you've missed the point. It isn't about what Gannon did wrong, it's about what the WH may have done wrong. You're right, this is all getting a lot of attention simply because Gannon is conservative (and potentially gay). But those things are only important because of his connection to the WH. Gannon didn't just change his last name, he was using a fake first name as well. maybe he has a good reason, but the questions are still legitimate. A reporter, of a questionable online "news" organization, gained access to the WH under an assumed name. Questions about how that person gained access to the WH are legitimate questions.

It's been repeatedly demonstrated here that when one admits to disagreeing with Bush or the WH on anything he/she automatically inherits a wealth of shared opinions/attitudes/baggage. When one liberal speaks, he/she speaks for all liberals. You have no right to form individual opinions. You're a liberal, we're all alike, we're all nuts and lately, the most AMAZING one to me is that we hate gays and blacks.

You've presented facts here that many have ignored. I do think Bob's comments make sense, although I've never cared for his name-calling. Just ignore Napa on this unless he says something remotely factual. Although he seems like a nice guy and I think he means well, when it comes to politics, NAPA routinely bases detailed arguments on broad generalizations. Several who post here do that. At least Mr. Cox deals in fact. I don't contend he's not biased, nor does he, but MOST of the time, I think he's fair-minded. And if your facts hold water, he'll acknowlege it. Alot of the others just clam up.

I don't know from pseudonyms or behind-the scenes communiques, but allowing for what you've posted here, I for one am glad you make the effort.

Paul- Thanks. And until recently, I shared your views about Bob. I don't agree with him, but he's intelligent and his arguments often make a lot of sense. That's why I have been willing to engage him in dialogue and debate. As for the fair-mindedness of Mr. Cox, well, that's come into question lately...on the board and by email.

Paul, it is ok to generalize, you are both doing it above about conservatives and I have no problem with that.

My question remains, what have you got besides the guy is a conservative and used a pen name?

Apparently nothing.

NAPA,

I'm sorry, but I WAS MOCKING YOU WITH MY GENERALIZATIONS. It was intentional. I intended irony. Your incessant use of generalization is, as I've oft opined here, A PET PEEVE. I beg you to point it out when I'm guity of the same, because I do try really hard not to do so (except for effect). I'll THANK you!

I'll get back to you on "Gannon". The story's still unfolding and I'm not rushing to judgment. I admit that I think it smells bad.

Have a nice weekend.

I missed Wolf Blitzer's interview of Guckert/Gannon but the transcript is up on the site.

In order that you not get bogged down by having to scan through the superfluous stuff about Korea and nukes and such, I've exerpted it for your viewing pleasure.

That is if everyone's head can stop spinning Linda-Blair-like in moral outrage over media/message deck stacking. It's a terrible corruption of the sancity of WH press conferences when the WH plants a known conservative flak among thoughtful and non-partisan reporters such as MSNBC's Hardblogger, David Shuster.

BTW: Help me out here, someone. I may be imagining things, but isn't there a news service that sounds like 'Gannon' that could have been Guckert's motivation in taking the Gannon name in order to sound more legit? If so, the question remains how the WH could pick someone so obviously in need of a psych evaluation. And speaking of comic relief, feel free to titter at the notion of Howard Dean's own Marcos Zuniga as investigator...

BLITZER: White House reporter controversy. Did this man lob some soft questions at the White House news briefing in a bid to derail the tough questions? Jeff Gannon is in the spotlight. He'll join me live in his first television interview.

Plus, your chance at a piece of Camelot, details of the upcoming Kennedy auction -- all that still to come.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: He was a little known White House correspondent for a little known organization. Now he's at the center of a growing controversy buzzing around Washington and the Internet. I'll have an exclusive interview with the man who calls himself Jeff Gannon in just a moment.

First, some background from Howard Kurtz of "The Washington Post" and the host of CNN's "RELIABLE SOURCES."

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

HOWARD KURTZ, "RELIABLE SOURCES": Jeff Gannon -- that's what he calls himself at least -- was an obscure member of the White House press corps before he got to ask President Bush a question two weeks ago. And that proved to be his professional downfall.

Gannon, a self-described conservative journalist, writes for the Web sites Talon News and GOPUSA, both of which are owned by Texas Republican activist Bobby Eberle. And when the president called on him, Gannon asked a rather loaded question that seemed to disparage Senator Hillary Clinton and Minority Leader Harry Reid.

JEFF GANNON, REPORTER: Senate Democratic leaders have painted a very bleak picture of the U.S. economy. 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?

KURTZ: One problem, Reid has never talked about soup lines. And Gannon later admitted he had picked up the characterization of the senator's views from Rush Limbaugh.

Suddenly, bloggers on liberal Web sites like Daily Kos started digging into his background. His real name, they discovered, was James Guckert. Gannon resigned from Talon News, saying that, out of concerns for his family, his voice of the new media has gone silent. He says he's been stalked and threatened by -- quote -- "nuts on the left."

Democratic Congresswoman Louise Slaughter has asked Bush in a letter whether the White House cleared Gannon in the briefing room to serve as -- quote -- "a tool of propaganda for your administration." White House spokesman Scott McClellan dismissed the charge, saying Gannon was allowed in on a day-to-day basis, just like any journalist, and it's not his job to screen reporters based on their political views. The president says McClellan didn't know who Gannon was when he called on him.

(on camera): Jeff Gannon called himself the conservative guy and delighted in being outspoken, even confrontational. His critics call him a fake reporter. But others say that liberal bloggers went too far in digging into his background because they didn't like his politics. Howard Kurtz, CNN, Washington.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BLITZER: And Jeff Gannon is joining us now for an exclusive television interview, his first TV interview since leaving his job.

Jeff, thanks very much for joining us.

Should I call you Jeff or James?

GANNON: Please call me Jeff Gannon.

BLITZER: So what -- explain the discrepancy. Your real name is James D. Guckert.

GANNON: Yes. Well, it's pronounced Guckert.

BLITZER: Guckert.

GANNON: It's a professional name. I used it because Jeff Gannon is easier to pronounce and easier to remember.

BLITZER: But you haven't legally changed it?

GANNON: No.

BLITZER: So your driver's license still has Guckert?

GANNON: Absolutely.

BLITZER: So, when you went into the White House and you showed your driver's license, it was under the name Guckert.

GANNON: Absolutely.

BLITZER: And so you just did this because it was easier to pronounce, presumably.

If you didn't do anything wrong, why did you resign?

GANNON: Well, since I asked my question, people that disagree with me have harassed and threatened not only myself, but my family. And I believe that leaving my post would bring that to an end.

BLITZER: When you say they harassed your family, what was going on?

GANNON: Well, the -- on -- I've been receiving threats. People have been stalking me in my neighborhood, have followed me to church, followed me down the street. And then there are phone calls and hate mail that I've gotten over the Internet.

And it's been very troubling. And when it went toward my family, then I said that I needed to put an end to it.

BLITZER: And when you say your family, could you be a little bit more...

GANNON: Well, I mean -- I mean my -- when my mother and my brother and his wife received telephone calls that -- you know, that contained threats and all kinds of terrible things being said about me, it's very disturbing. And that's way over the line. And I needed to put that to an end.

BLITZER: Because one of the things, as you know, that were said is that you had some sexually explicit Web sites that you were working on. I don't understand what that is, but maybe you could explain that.

GANNON: Well, several years ago, before I came to Washington, I had registered various domain names for a private client. I was doing Web site development. Those sites were never hosted. There's -- nothing ever went up on them. And the client went on to do something else.

There's been so much about me on the Internet that people have, you know, made assumptions about. And I just can't -- I don't even know them all and I can't address them all here.

BLITZER: I was going to say, were you there in the White House briefing room on a daily basis to try to change the subject, if you will, send softball questions to Scott McClellan, the press secretary? Or were you there as a real journalist trying to get the story?

GANNON: Well, Talon News is a legitimate conservative online news service. And my questions are things that my readers, 700,000 daily subscribed readers, want the answer to. And those are my questions.

I created the questions. Nobody fed questions to me. Scott McClellan certainly never knew what was coming. He knows -- he certainly knows...

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: Because you wore your politics on your sleeve. Everyone knew you were very conservative.

GANNON: Absolutely.

BLITZER: Why did you not get credentials, real credentials, from Capitol Hill from the U.S. Congress?

GANNON: Well, I made an attempt to do that originally when I was going to be covering Washington for Talon News. Our business -- Talon News' business model didn't fit the criteria of the Senate Press Gallery. And while we've been trying to comply, I couldn't stop doing the news. So I went on the basis of a daily pass. And that's -- it's all under the procedures that the White House has established for that.

BLITZER: What's the connection between GOPUSA, the political Web site, and the Talon News Service? It's owned by the same wealthy Texas Republican.

GANNON: I wouldn't say wealthy. I don't know that to be true or not. But...

BLITZER: Bobby Eberle.

GANNON: Bobby Eberle.

But it's common ownership. That's all. Talon News is a separate, independent news division. I work for Talon News. I write articles for Talon News. And that's it.

BLITZER: So what are you going to do now?

GANNON: Well, there's -- you know, God closes doors and opens windows. And I believe this is going to be a good opportunity for me, even though it's been painful. And I'm going -- I believe that there's a silver lining out there.

BLITZER: Do you have something already in the works?

GANNON: I've had some people call and make inquiries to see if I had any interest in certain positions.

BLITZER: Jeff Gannon, thanks very much.

GANNON: Thank you, Wolf.

I've been informed. Thanks, doll.

It's Gannett. Gannett...Gannon....hmmmmmm...

Thanks for that transcript, Cecilia. No one has one scrap of evidence that anything that Gannon says here isn't true.

Except apparently the mysterious Mr. M. What does that M stand for? Is it a pseudo name, or is it a professional name? A fake name, and he is actually Noam Chomsky, or Howard Zinn, here to disrupt and insert disinformation like he has a tape where Bush admits he lied about WMD---satellited in from the Ashtar Command on Alpha Centauri???

Who is this M, and why does he only ask liberal questions??? Is threatening his family in order at this point? (that's a joke)

You're welcome, Napa and I appreciate your pointing out the joke to me but I've never needed that sort of assistance. :D

I'm sure the pseudonymn bit is meant to be ironic too but you have to admit that there is a bit of difference between posting on a blog board under one and in getting a WH press pass under one. Besides M has already said the "M" is the initial of her first name. So Thin-Skinned must be her last.

I put the "this is a joke" after the threatening the family, even though I knew everyone would know it was a joke, when you say something like that you better make sure in this day and age, things being what they are.

And yes, posting anonymously on a blog site is not the same as signing into the WH press room, BUUUT I must point out again he did not sign in anonymously to the WH press room, he used his real name and his real drivers license, he only uses Gannon as a pen name.

But I do think I have a point here, you cannot condemn someone for using a false name. There are a lot of legitimate reasons to do so such as posting on a blog (where you claim to have a tape of Bush admitting he lied about WMD--man do I ever want to hear that one).

Napa,

M has been every bit as open about her politics here as you've been. Yes, she's a liberal, as am I. Why do you insist on maligning those who don't share your opinions?

I think Bush lied, too. A lot of folks do. Can we prove it by playing a Bush confession? No. Can we present contradictory public statements about WMD? Yes. Can Bush explain them away? Yep. Does that mean he didn't lie? No, just that no one's proven it yet. The best liars often escape detection. If the standard of proof rests in one's public admission of his/her deceit, few will be proven liars.

I can't prove Bush lied. That's why I haven't accused him of it. But I can tell you that if I had a friend/spouse who changed his/her story as often as Bush has, I'd be very careful as to what level of trust I placed in her/him. I'd insist on separate bank accounts.

I'm not maligning her, but I do strongly disagree with her and you about Gannon. She said she had a tape of Bush admitting that he lied about WMD. I don't believe that and would like to see or get a link where I could hear it.

I do not believe that Bush lied about WMD, and I don't think it is fair to accuse him of lying without some evidence. There is a lot of evidence that points to the fact that he didn't lie, everyone including Clinton and Albright thought the same. Clinton even went out of his way on national television *after* it came out that there was no WMD and Democrats starting calling Bush a liar that he didn't think Bush was a liar, that he, Clinton, believed the same thing.

The reason I think you are so ready to believe this is that you don't like him to begin with. The reason you don't like him, or at least the Bush hating liberals which is most of them, is that they have made up stuff like that and tons more about him, and on a daily basis have repeated it to each other and whoever would listen to the point that they have made themselves delusional.

Just today I saw an article describing how some kid made some kind of diorama for a school contest in some liberal New England area that was called Bush/Hitler depicting how Bush was just like Hitler, and it won not only the school contest but the whole state thing or something. Lots of adults praised it, and it is just nutty. I see examples like that everyday, and liberals have done this so much that they start to believe their own BS and have lost touch with reality.

The vituperation toward Bush was over the top a year before the war, now I don't believe that you could call it only vituperation, it is clearly delusions that don't really have a whole lot to do with Bush.

Bush is just a basic, decent guy who decided action had to be taken to stand up for the country. Whether he has made all the right choices or not is debatable, clearly he has made mistakes, but none of what the liberals say really has a whole lot to do with what he is really like.

Very little of the criticism reflects anything real, anything other than their own extreme biases and delusions. Liberals are angry, and their anger is making them blind. They automatically hate/dislike Republicans, it is called being judgemental. When that is where you are coming from and you stay stuck there, about anything in life, after a while your view becomes so subconsciously biased that you can't even see it anymore. This Gannon situation is one more thing.

If McClellan allowed one reporter in the WH press room, sticking to the rules, who he knew would ask some questions he wanted to answer, I have no problem with that. There is no scarcity of attack dogs in there that will find fault with every single thing Bush does before he even does it most of the time. Bush has as much of a right to present his view as others do to criticize it.

Napa, Your comments/my reactions:
"I don't think it is fair to accuse him of lying without some evidence."
--> The evidence upon which I base my opinions is the abundant contradictory public statements on record, along with similar comments uttered publicly by Bush's cabinet. Bush and his cronies have blame the WMD contradictions on bad intelligence. I think they're lying. Time will tell. I can live with your thinking me unfair, just as I must live with your constant generalizations and "birdshot" counter-arguments.

"The reason I think you are so ready to believe this is that you don't like him to begin with."
--> You are presumtuous to a fault. How dare you presume what I or others think?

"The reason you don't like him, or at least the Bush hating liberals which is most of them, is that they have made up stuff like that and tons more about him, and on a daily basis have repeated it to each other and whoever would listen to the point that they have made themselves delusional.
--> Again, presumtuous to a fault. More generalizations and assumptions, along with an accusation of being delusional. Simply amazing.

"The vituperation toward Bush was over the top a year before the war, now I don't believe that you could call it only vituperation, it is clearly delusions that don't really have a whole lot to do with Bush."
--> Same tune, different key. And this time, our behavior's become "clearly delusional".

"Liberals are angry, and their anger is making them blind. They automatically hate/dislike Republicans, it is called being judgemental. When that is where you are coming from and you stay stuck there, about anything in life, after a while your view becomes so subconsciously biased that you can't even see it anymore."
--> And we're (I'm) being judgmental. Listen to yourself.

"If McClellan allowed one reporter in the WH press room, sticking to the rules, who he knew would ask some questions he wanted to answer, I have no problem with that."
--> And I do, sorry. So shoot me. If I were you, I'd say something like "after all, all you guys have guns..."

"There is no scarcity of attack dogs in there that will find fault with every single thing Bush does before he even does it most of the time."
--> And we're deluded?

"Bush has as much of a right to present his view as others do to criticize it."
--> Until people `wearing masks' gain WH favor at the expense of known or suspected opponents. Funny you should bring up the "Hitler/youth" anecdote. Like I said, I'll wait until we know more. But to me, my friend, this smacks of propaganda. And as far as delusion goes, if the shoe fits...

Paul, here are two things for you from today:

From the WaPo: Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley, a Democrat, went so far as to compare Bush to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorists, saying that with his budget "he is attacking America's cities."

And you should have seen him saying it, it was really nastily put, and so over the top.

And this:
Seventeen-year-old Jeffrey Eden of Charlestown, R.I., has been awarded an A by his teacher and the ''Silver Key'' in the Rhode Island Scholastic Art Awards for a diorama titled ''Bush/Hitler and How History Repeats Itself.''

Here's the address for more of same:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn13.html

I see 5 or 6 things like this a day about Bush, that is so over the top and wrong, and sorry to generalize but who else but liberals would do this? Maybe you don't, I don't know, but many if not most do. I live in a completely left wing town where Michael Moore is a local hero. The local paper, the Napa Register, wrote nearly 100 articles about Moore leading up to the election and not a single one had any negative tone to it. Amazing.

Also, I do not think there has been contradictory statements by Bush or his cabinet at all. They have changed what they have said due to new information, that is all. Anyone would do that, this is what I mean about being biased. Bush says there is WMD because he believes it, then finds out the intelligence was wrong and says, there isn't any, and you label that contradictory. No, there is new information, that is all. Labeling it contradictory is unfair.

We do all have guns, you are correct in that generalization.:)

Napa,

I agree with you in the sense that the Guckert story has the shelf life of an opened can of coke.

Where we part company is at your inability to admit that Guckert was likely allowed to be part of the WH press corp, when he wasn't allowed to be part of the senatorial or congressional press corp, BECAUSE he was a bit of stage management by the WH.

Now, I agree with you, Napa. In order to view this as some sort of dark and nefarious machination worthy of the term propagandizing you have to view the WH agenda as dark and nefarious. And by the same token, we (conservatives) tend to come with out own built-in perspectives, one is that the WH press corp is a place where a out-front conservative is taken as seriously as Miss Beasley.

But likely stage management by the WH it is. And I think you do have to give Paul's side their due in this matter, in the sense that the WH does try to micromanage message forums. Which is what he's been arguing.

And instead of expanding this and the motivations of liberals in general, way out beyond what the parameters of the subject at hand, in some sort of attempt to discredit anything they argue, why don't you just admit the stage management and understand, that for all the reasons you've mentioned-- they arent' going to view that in the same light that you do.

And then get on with your life, and hopefully get to the place where you're more enchanted with your ideals than you are any politican, than you with refuting any opponent.

That's my advice to you, Napa. And I admire you very much.

Napa,
And because you read items like Steyn's, you cry "the sky is falling...The liberal media's subverting our culture--we have no voice". I live in an area where local media is repub owned and contolled, and I can cite daily oposing examples as biased as yours. I also frequently see them in national media. When I post articles to support my arguments, I consciously seek out truly objective--or even obviously opposition sources. If you want to truly convince an opponent, you should try it sometime.

Re the Hitler/Bush student art project, who gave you or Mark Steyn the authority to judge these academians? To clue you to the journalistic proclivities of its author, his is an op-ed piece in which Mr. Steyn insinuates that John Kerry would like to see America be more like Germany which supports legalized prostitution (the implication being the Kerry condones such policies). Steyn continues to take Kerry's positon on fighting terrorism (as similar to prosecution prostitution) out of context even though this spin was repeatedly, incontravertably refuted during the campaign. This is the very tactic you site as being from the lib playbook..."a lie repeated long enough becomes valid," which is merely more projection on your part. (Just like when you complained about how us liberals are so homophobic). Yeah, we sure hate those sinful `fags'...and uppity negroes. From what is reported in the article, I don't have enough info to judge the teachers, etc. You obviously do. But what were the complete parameters of the assignment? Upon what criteria were the arts objects judged? What were some of the other submissions? Answers to these questions can reveal the standards by which this admittedly controversial piece may have been judged to be of merit, but neither you or Mr. Steyn are compelled to report such "nonessential" details. He also reports as fact others without providing any basis in fact -(--What a testament to the quality of Rhode Island's ''Social Studies'' curriculum). The entire article is reported through Steyn's extremely conservative filter.

If you want to convince me, stick with more objective sources. I can counter with countless diatribes written by lib wingnuts but prefer not to legitimize them by doing so. And you have the nerve to call me (and libs) blind and deluded. You think I don't seek out such reactionary conservative bullshit? I do. I want to know what you're thinking and saying. I read, I listen and I process it. You should give that a try rather than simply regurgitating such misleading "reports". This argument wouldn't hold up in court, and it shouldn't be used in the court of public opinion either. Shame on you and guys like you for lending credence to such propaganda or worse, passing it off as fact.

Like it or not, we live in a republic based on democratic principles that include freedom of expression. Contoversial expression isn't illegal. The Bill of Rights allows us to write, sing, dance, paint, construct, sculpt, voice and create contoversial political commentary. The fact that some of it may even be deemed of high merit shouldn't be considered diabolical or particularly threatening...it's our right. If another student had designed a similar project based on the premise that Bush was like anyone from Ghandi to Manson, that too, would have been perfectly acceptable in AMERICA, bur perhaps not in your IDEAL America.

And C,

Thanks for seeing what lies underneath my irritation. I apologize to both of you for letting it get the best of me.

No need for an apology, Paul. I hadn't notice that you had become particularly irritated.

Here's an even-handed piece:

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/content/shared/news/nation/stories/0213_BUSH_COMMUNICATIONS.html

We gave ourselves the authority to judge the Bush is Hitler diorama, as is our right, and as you yourself are doing and simply making a different judgement about it. My point about that isn't about Steyn anyway, the stories he describes are true ones regardless of his point of view.

My point is that that diorama is nutty, and if you can't see that I don't know what to say. That is my frustration, that the left has taken the debate to such a level that it produces things like this. And not just once in a while, all the time. And the left is also apparently blind to the lack of balance of in this Gannon story.

Steyn's point about Germany is that this is where the left can take you, to this extreme a place that women are forced to go into prostitution to get welfare.

Anyway, for someone who thinks you can carry on a converstion without generalizations you make a lot of them. You can't, and I see nothing wrong with it. You apparently understand what I mean.

I am writing to explain a point of view, not qualify every single point with, many liberals, or most liberals, or whatever. For example, you said my responses were scattershot--a generalization that is not always or even mostly true, but it is true sometimes. I know what you mean so good enough, and I think if someone is arguing in good faith they will get the point and not get hung up on little things like that. The reason my arguments are scattershot is that I am writing quickly and trying to give an example or two of what I mean without writing a book because I am writing a lot anyway.

Back to our argument: I wouldn't disagree with you that there are conservative views that are just as nutty, the guy down the street from me is a John Bircher who thinks that the United Nations has taken over the world and that we are all subjects of a secret one world government and don't even realize it.

Oddly, even though he tells me about secret homophobic messages in John Wayne movies, he also agrees with some of the liberal stuff like being anti free trade and globalization of the economy. The nutballs seem to meet up at some point on the horizon, where one goes east and the other west and eventually meet half way around the world somewhere.

The problem is that the nutty left holds great sway over the Democratic party, whereas most conservatives like myself think Birchers are nutballs.

And the point of this discussion and what has gotten me so angry is how unfairly Gannon has been mistreated, and the reason. The reason is the imperial way that the Dems feel their point of view is the only right one, and it doesn't even seem to occur to them that the WH Press Room has been filled with left wing counterparts to Gannon for thirty years.

Where were all the liberals protests over Helen Thomas and a host of others who were far worse from the left than Gannon was from the right? Gannon got treated so shabbily it is amazing, for doing exactly nothing wrong.

Cecilia, thanks for the link and I think it proves my point with the part about the reporter from Common Dreams, a completely anti-Bush anti-conservative on line publication that has a reporter there all the time running a series of derogatory articles on McClellan---why isn't this guy being run out, because he doesn't use a pen name? He is an exact counterpart to Gannon. Here are a few lines from the article:

But on Feb. 1, McClellan opted to ignore a hostile question from Russell Mokhiber, editor of Corporate Crime Report and an occasional briefing room participant.

Mokhiber's interactions with McClellan are catalogued in something he calls "Scottie & Me," (formerly known as "Ari & I") at a Web site called CommonDreams.Org.

Here's the most recent, in which Mokhiber noted the Justice Department sided with those who support Ten Commandments displays in government buildings:

Mokhiber: "The question is, does the president believe in commandment number six, thou shalt not kill, as it applies to the U.S. invasion of Iraq?"

I really think that the press and public have become so hostile that both sides have a right to control hecklers and disruption, both sides have a right to get their message out to people.

The WH Press corps in not doing its job of being reporters anymore, they are a gotcha gang looking to crucify, and Bush has a right to control events in order to get the message out the way he wants to. Clinton and Gore did this, Kerry did this, but none of the liberals had any problem with it then. Union thugs used to attack people physically at Kerry events. Where was the outrage then?

NAPA,

"Kerry did this, but none of the liberals had any problem with it then."

I went to Kerry events, granted, they were local. Never saw this. Nor did I see it reported locally in our repub rags or on TV. In fact, even here in rightieville the opposite--the contrast between the staged repub events with hand-picked crowds and planted questions v. Kerry events w/ repub protestors-- was repeatedly mentioned.

"Union thugs used to attack people physically at Kerry events."

News to me. Got links?

Cecelia, I just noticed your comment with this in it:

>>>Where we part company is at your inability to admit that Guckert was likely allowed to be part of the WH press corp, when he wasn't allowed to be part of the senatorial or congressional press corp, BECAUSE he was a bit of stage management by the WH.Cecelia, I just noticed your comment with this in it:

>>>Where we part company is at your inability to admit that Guckert was likely allowed to be part of the WH press corp, when he wasn't allowed to be part of the senatorial or congressional press corp, BECAUSE he was a bit of stage management by the WH.

Although not proven, I will agree that there is a good chance McClellan knew the guys point of view when he let him be in there--but so what? I am sure he knows the Common Dreams guys point of view too.

The White House *has* to stage manage its message, Clinton did it well, and it is simply required due to the nature of politics these days. The Democrats/liberals/msm brought it on themselves by becoming such virulent attack dogs.

Bush is very good at it, which is why he is President right now, and if he weren't he wouldn't make it and wouldn't be able to lead the country. They are making way too much of it in my view, any politician that doesn't do it will lose elections now. The media is to blame for making it that way.

For Bush it is especially critical because he has aroused the ire of the media and the Democrats like no one before him, they are far more vituperative toward him than they were to Reagan. He must counter in kind or be gone. That's what happened to Gingrich, an outstanding visionary who had ethics charges filed against him in the house on a daily basis for over a year. The GOP has learned its lesson that you cannot sit back and take it, you have to fight back.

A line has to be drawn at the honesty of the message, not at the way that you overcome the attack dogs to get the message out.

The reason Gannon wasn't allowed to be a permanent member is that one of the organizations he was with was an advocacy organization, and he got only a daily pass, the WH followed the same rules it applied to the guy from Common Dreams, the NYTimes, etc. There was no subterfuge there. Common Dreams is clearly an advocacy site, I wonder if he has a pass to the Senate Press room?

As far as expanding the argument beyond this particular position I felt it was necessary to put it in context. There is a whole world view that liberals bring to the discussion that is flawed here. Every single liberal, maybe not, but you know what I mean. If Paul has other reasons, that is fine, but I am debating main stream positions.

I maybe got to foaming at the mouth too much here, but the fact that the guy's mother got threatened to be killed, apparently, really got to me. He was crying on television, and to me the liberals who are doing this are so callous, they just do not care. To me they are so obsessed with hating Bush that everything is fair game. Have you ever read Kos? Some of the stuff going on over there is unbelievable.

http://dailykos.com/story/2005/2/6/17254/96215

And thanks for compliment, maybe I will calm down now. :)

And BTW...give me something other than rightie blogs.

Thanks in advance

http://www.whenangrydemocratsattack.com/

Star Tribune Condemns Kerry Supporters' Attacks on Republicans at the State Fair

"The Minnesota standard of spirited but nonviolent political disagreement was violated during John Kerry's visit to the State Fair Thursday, when three or four men, at least one wearing a "Laborers for Kerry" shirt, roughed up two College Republicans from the University of St. Thomas. The students were wearing costumes that resembled giant foam "flip-flop" sandals. One man was caught on camera elbowing a student in the head. An observer said he saw pushing, hip-checking and bumping that went on for 10 or 15 minutes.

"State Republican chairman Ron Eibensteiner asked state AFL-CIO president Ray Waldron for an apology. That should come from the perpetrators themselves -- and Waldron and other leading DFLers should publicly condemn this dangerous conduct. The scuffle at the fair could easily have become a melee causing serious injury, and turning peaceable people off to politics.

"Kerry supporters have plenty of ammunition for a war of words with Bush backers. Those at the fair, and outside the convention hall this week in New York, should recognize that if they resort to fists instead, they'll lose."

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040917-010155-8041r.htm

A West Virginia man said yesterday that Democrats stole his family's Bush-Cheney campaign signs at an event featuring Democratic vice presidential candidate Sen. John Edwards.
"They just pounced on us," said Phil Parlock, who took his 11-year-old son, Alex, and 3-year-old daughter, Sophia, to the Democratic rally at Tri-State Airport in Huntington, W.Va.
Sophia became briefly...the family was set upon by supporters of Mr. Edwards and Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry � "mostly the painters union guys" � who "started stealing my signs." Soon, "old women and college students joined in the fracas," said Mr. Parlock, describing himself as "strictly a volunteer, grass-roots supporter" of the president. Mr. Parlock ran unsuccessfully for his local school board this year.

Unfortunately this kind of thing went on all across the United States during the campaign from mostly union thugs, as I said. In the first link it gives a long list of things.

If you want to disqualify it as a conservative site or something, what should matter is whether what happened happened or not, not who bothered to save the information on line. It did happen, a lot, in this and other elections.

"Union thugs used to attack people physically at Kerry events." You prove this by posting a link to a Washington Times article that cites a Drudge Report story.

Further support allegedly appears on a site
paid for by the Minnesota Republican party. There are many disturbing pictures there. Are these surveillance pics that show perpetrators? No. Do any show crimes in pregress? No. Are any incriminating? NO, no. Could these have been staged by righties to enrage the party faithful? Yes. Is any of this evidentiary? NO. Does this mean that NO violence or vandalism occurred against Bushies and that this site intentionally misleads readers by posting faked pix? NO. What this means is that as presented, these are merely unsubstantiated allegations, not facts. Get to know the difference, please. This GOP-funded site says the FBI was investigating. What became of those investigations? You have the results? If not, get back to me when you do and in the meantime, please stop spreading rumors.

The Washington Tmes and the Drudge Report are certainly bastions of our free and unbiased media. Does this mean that some a-holes may not have done what the article alleges? NO. Is the story corroborated? NO. If the event actually occured, does this mean that its perpetrators were, in fact Kerry supporters? NO. If they were, since one man wore a "support organized labor T, does that make them "union thugs"??? No. WHY DO YOU INSIST ON IDICTING WITHOUT CONCRETE EVIDENCE? Assault is a crime. You have alleged victims of a very public assault against a father and his child, sympathetic indeed. If valid, you imply that you feel Kerry supporters would be willing to ignore such a crime. Are you serious? Where are the perps? Were they arrested/tried? How much time did they get?

On a lesser note, do you think Kerry signs weren't stolen? Around here, there were reports of both sides doing this. One repub teen caught stealing Bush signs had a truck bed full of them. The cops made him put them back. Two of mine were stolen, along with a bumper sticker. Did I go off alleging high crimes? No. I got more signs and stickers.

If you want me to take you seriously, I'm afraid you're going to have to do better than this. Please make an effort.

BTW, I found a similar site that was fairer and less inflamatory. But you know what? I Still don't submit to you or anyone that these events are anything more than unsubstantiated claims.

http://news.statesmanjournal.com/article.cfm?i=88626

Napa,

FYI, the media has been "vituperative" and unkind to many past presidents. To single out W is more than slightly misleading. Read your history.

Deja vu all over again.

Only Napa has taken the voter fraud side and Paul's the skeptic.

Those stories and more were all over the MSM when they happened.

How hostile the press has been toward Presidents is a matter of opinion I guess, it seems to me to have started with Nixon, gradually, then upscaled a bit til Reagan. With Reagan it really got worse and has been getting worse and worse since. One quantum leap for Clinton, with Bush it jumped a quantum then another quantum. Now it is absurd and an obstruction to debate, not a help.

The need for politicians to "stage" what they are doing has risen proportionally to the media not being watch dog but an attack dog.

napa,
"Those stories and more were all over the MSM when they happened."

I tried several archival searches and found nothing more substantive than what you provided. I feel it's irresponsible to present these as fact. My questions stand. If you have corroboration or results of subsequent investigations, please share them. Otherwise, I assume these are mere allegations.

We differ on the history of pres./press vituperation but I see no value in further discussing it.

Huh? The first story was in the Minneapolis Star Tribune, the second in the Washington Times. If you choose not to believe them, fine, but not only did those things happen, on one day in the middle of the campaign a coordinated effort by the unions had them breaking into Republican headquarters in over twenty cities. The stories of union thuggery go on and on.

One problem with the internet is that there are not that many news sites that archive back very far without making you pay for it. The best one is FreeRepublic, they have everything. But, that is a conservative site, so cross that off I guess. I suppose if it is not in the Nation or on Kos then you get to pretend it never happened, is that it?

http://www.whenangrydemocratsattack.com/ led me to the Minn. GOP site I mentioned. I failed to open all of the links. I mentioned the WA TImes (and its unsubstantuiated, regurtitated Drudge article. When have I posted anything from Kos or the Nation? I'll check it out, rightie site or not. Thanks for the tip. If you're right, I'll be the first to acknowlege it here. But if you know, where are the perps? Were they arrested/tried? How much time did they get?

NAPA, Okay. I checked FreeRepublic and found nothing more substantive than what you showed me.
Searched Dem thugs, thugs target, union thugs attack, union thugs, thugs attack. Any suggestions?

Minnesotan Star Trib is a well known liberal paper. It is the one that the guys from Powerline are always battling.

Arrested, are you kidding? Nothing ever happens to them, it is excused as "hard campaigning" or something, I dunno why they don't get arrested, they ought to.

Unions have a long reputation for this kind of behaviour, and I think that people just get sort of used to it or something. Some union guys did attack some Freepers with Bush signs at the DNC convention last year and they got arrested but then released. If there aren't serious injuries the police just kind of let it go on by.

I am a small time local political consultant but the guy I work for is more of a major player. He worked on the school voucher campaign here in California, and the Union here shot his security gate lock out with a shotgun then came over once a week to dump his garbage over. He got menacing phone calls, etc. He has been doing this awhile and he just took it as a warning not to push the campaign too far or they would escalate.

His side was leading in the campaign about 60-40, then two days before the vote the teachers union printed up a letter that they distributed to all the students telling the parents that if they voted for this that their childs education would be ruined, the school would close, yada yada yada. The voucher initiative lost by a point. It was totally illegal, but nothing was done after the election because it wouldn't have resulted in overturning it, and no one seemed to care. I was mystified myself that the Republicans just let it go, but I geuss it was a loser so they dropped it.

Anyway, I could go on and on about unions, I don't blame the Democrats for all this although they are in bed with them similarly to the way the GOP is in bed with corporations. But I don't blame everything that corporations do on the GOP either. Unions have lots more money for politics than the corporations too.

Lots more on my web site, napablogger, if you are interested.

>>>Any suggestions?>>>Any suggestions?

Let it go? For Valantines? Keep your eyes open and see what comes up, it happens all the time during elections.

I sure don't feel like taking time to search this anymore.

No prob, Nap.

...Happy Valentine's Day!

thanks Paul!