From DailyKos:

Embarrassed: The Wendy Vitter Double-Standard by osterizer
Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 06:02:17 PM PDT

Tonight's Countdown With Keith Olbermann with Allison Stewart featured a segment (#2 on the countdown) in which Stewart and Jeff Bercovici discuss the dress Wendy Vitter wore last night in terms of the sexual messages it sent.

We rightfully objected to the media scrutiny of Nancy Pelosi's scarves and sense of fashion. It is a sexist double-standard, and we should be no less in opposition to this double-standard just because the target happens to be a Republican.

WOW, when DailyKos agrees with OW, is the end of the world near?

He'd better get called to the carpet on this. I'd like to see Bill-O run a clip of it on his show. Even though olbydickwad wasn't the one who said it. And I don't want to hear about giving orangeboy's show any publicity or credence. Let the people who never watch his show or log on to this site see what a hypocrical douchebag he is.

Wheres's Al Sharpton?

The "ho-pas" subtitle thing on Mrs. Vitter followed the Hot Ghetto Mess conservation about booty-shaking hos' and was a play on it.

The transcript is priceless! The conversation alone on the upcoming BET show (Hot Ghetto Mess) should have the I-Man feeling like a groundbreaker...

There is a world of difference between the way Imus used that word, with reference to young college athletes, and the way it was used last night. When I first saw Ms. Vitter, I thought it had to be some sort of joke. All of the women in my life dress conservatively, so I may not be the best judge, but I still think Ms. Vitter had to have chosen that outrageous outfit/costume to embarass her husband, as well he deserves. Still, I think the text superfluous and in bad taste. I wish it had not been done. The image said all that needed to be said.

There is a world of difference between the way Imus used that word, with reference to young college athletes, and the way it was used last night. When I first saw Ms. Vitter, I thought it had to be some sort of joke. All of the women in my life dress conservatively, so I may not be the best judge, but I still think Ms. Vitter had to have chosen that outrageous outfit/costume to embarass her husband, as well he deserves. Still, I think the text superfluous and in bad taste. I wish it had not been done. The image said all that needed to be said.

Posted by: Clucker at July 18, 2007 6:39 PM

I absolutely agree.

You may not be the best judge....about the terms used in describing Hot Ghetto Mess in the conversation before or certainly about the appropriateness of Mrs. Vitter's dress. I've seen more skin shown in church than is visible in that dress.

To me, there is nothing about that dress that says "ho", except if you're Alison Stewart or another uberlib Olby flunky hosting Meltdown. Cecelia's right - I see more skin in church and everywhere else in public, even the office.

That was an inopportune moment to continue a "ho" thread. Hasn't this woman been through enough, and now MSNBC uses "ho" jokes to communicate her plight?

Capus, who gets fired for this? I won't hold my breath because I would turn blue waiting on MSNBC's double standard to change. MSNBC and NBC News have no credibility whatsoever.

That was an inopportune moment to continue a "ho" thread. Hasn't this woman been through enough, and now MSNBC uses "ho" jokes to communicate her plight?

Capus, who gets fired for this? I won't hold my breath because I would turn blue waiting on MSNBC's double standard to change. MSNBC and NBC News have no credibility whatsoever.

Posted by: at July 18, 2007 7:01 PM

Well, they're going to argue that "ho-pas" was a reference to Mr. Vitter's imbroglio. Mrs. Vitter was just a joyous collateral hit...

I've seen more skin shown in church than is visible in that dress.
-----------------------
I have not, nor have I ever seen the slinkiness, the clininess or the print in Church. But, that is not the point. The point is, in the context in which it was worn, that dress did nothing but emphasis her husband's lack of moral fiber. It was an incredible lapse of judgment, if not taste on Ms. Vitter's part. There is an entire science based upon how men and women should dress when in Court, and I can assure you, no woman ought to dress that way in court. A simple dress, in a dark color, some pearls, maybe a subtle polka dot, sling back pumps .... If Ms. Vitter had dressed that way, wouldn't the impression conveyed have been much more powerful? To be sure, bad taste is not a crime, and if it weren't for bad taste, some people would have no taste. All I am saying is this woman wanted to embarass her husband. I suspect she did to most who saw her.

If a Democratic candidate or politician's wife would have worn that dress they would have been tripping over themselves to say how wonderful it was. But nope, let a GOP woman look good in a dress and the insults begin. Because as we all know calling a woman a "ho" is fine just so long as she's a Republican.

Allison Stewart was wrong for saying that .. Mr Vitter is the ho, and when Mr Flynt releases the list with 30 more whore mongers it will be a proud day. Fucking rightwing hypocrites.

Hopefully that steam pipe went off close to the Fox Noise channel and killed Hannity and O'Rielly

If a Democratic candidate or politician's wife would have worn that dress they would have been tripping over themselves to say how wonderful it was. But nope, let a GOP woman look good in a dress and the insults begin. Because as we all know calling a woman a "ho" is fine just so long as she's a Republican.

-----

I didn't use the word you did, but that address was inappropriate for Ms. Vitter, in the circumstances in which she found herself, and it would be inappropriate for any woman in any such circumstance. Political identity is irrelevant.

You know, you are being awfully defensive. You obviously sense how inappropriate that was.

If Ms. Vitter had dressed that way, wouldn't the impression conveyed have been much more powerful? To be sure, bad taste is not a crime, and if it weren't for bad taste, some people would have no taste. All I am saying is this woman wanted to embarass her husband. I suspect she did to most who saw her.

Posted by: Clucker at July 18, 2007 7:55 PM

Actually, I think had Mrs. Vitter dressed as you described we have seen subtitles of "june cleaver beaver" or some such...

When O'lielly was about 11 or 12 his neighbor said he overheard this conversation his mother was having with him on the front porch.
"well son, its like this right here, don't really know who your daddy is...could be your uncle bob, could be the neighbors Irish Setter, could be a pony down at the stable...don't rightly know.
But don't let that stop you son in fact use this knowledge to go through life pissing people off just for the hell of it.
Make them pay for the world kicking in your ass. You wont find happyness in this lifestyle but hey, your pretty much screwed anyway, HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Clucker, you obviously are a moron.

There is an entire science based upon how men and women should dress when in Court, and I can assure you, no woman ought to dress that way in court. A simple dress, in a dark color, some pearls, maybe a subtle polka dot, sling back pumps ....
Posted by: Clucker at July 18, 2007 7:55 PM

hmmm....RK, you may have called this one.

I wonder who Jeff Gannan was buggering..

Secret Service records raise new questions about discredited conservative reporter (post #1)

Secret Service records raise new questions about discredited conservative reporter

By John Byrne| RAW STORY Editor

Advertisement

Updated: Day discovered with two check-ins but no check outs; Other events found on some days without press briefings

READ THE DOCUMENTS

In what is unlikely to stem the controversy surrounding disgraced White House correspondent James Guckert, the Secret Service has furnished logs of the writer’s access to the White House after requests by two Democratic congressmembers.

The documents, obtained by Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) and Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) through a Freedom of Information Act request, reveal Guckert had remarkable access to the White House. Though he wrote under the name Jeff Gannon, the records show that he applied with his real name.

Gannon’s ready access to President Bush and his work for a news agency that frequently plagiarized content from other reporters and tailored it to serve a conservative message may raise new questions about the White House’s attempts to seed favorable news coverage. Democrats have sought to paint Guckert in the context of other efforts by the Administration to “plant” positive spin by paying for video news releases and columnists to espouse their views.

Guckert made more than 200 appearances at the White House during his two-year tenure with the fledging conservative websites GOPUSA and Talon News, attending 155 of 196 White House press briefings. He had little to no previous journalism experience, previously worked as a male escort, and was refused a congressional press pass.

Perhaps more notable than the frequency of his attendance, however, is several distinct anomalies about his visits.

Guckert made more than two dozen excursions to the White House when there were no scheduled briefings. On many of these days, the Press Office held press gaggles aboard Air Force One—which raises questions about what Guckert was doing at the White House. On other days, the president held photo opportunities.

On at least fourteen occasions, Secret Service records show either the entry or exit time missing. Generally, the existing entry or exit times correlate with press conferences; on most of these days, the records show that Guckert checked in but was never processed out.

In March, 2003, Guckert left the White House twice on days he had never checked in with the Secret Service. Over the next 22 months, Guckert failed to check out with the Service on fourteen days. On several of these visits, Guckert either entered or exited by a different entry/exit point than his usual one. On one of these days, no briefing was held; on another, he checked in twice but failed to check out.

“I’d be worried if I was the White House and I knew that a reporter with a day pass never left,” one White House reporter told RAW STORY. “I’d wonder, where is he hiding? It seems like a security risk.”

Others who have covered the White House say not checking in or out with the Secret Service is unusual, especially in the wake of Sept. 11. The Secret Service declined to comment.

“We responded to the FOIA request and can provide no further information,” Service spokesman Jonathan Cherry said.

Guckert declined to comment, directing all questions to the Service.

The records furnished by the Service are unlikely to finally answer who approved Gannon’s “temporary” day passes into the presidential residence. The Service keeps a record of who approved passes only for the last sixty days; previous records are kept by the White House.

Since December 2004, all but one of Gannon’s forty-eight temporary appointments were requested by Lois Cassano, a White House Press Office media assistant. One additional request was made by Peter Watkins, a press assistant who now works as deputy press secretary to First Lady Laura Bush.

Guckert sometimes stayed for an extended period of time before and after press conferences, particularly early in his tenure. This was especially common during his first few months, when he might be in the White House for as long as six hours.

A White House reporter dismissed this as insignificant, noting that sometimes reporters stay between events.

“You could probably find people who stayed there for nine hours,” the reporter said.

Occasionally, the former Talon News reporter visited the White House twice on the same day. This was also most common in the early months.

The Secret Service furnished the records after a Freedom of Information Act request from Reps. John Conyers (D-MI) and Louise Slaughter (D-NY).

Guckert drew fire from liberals after asking a question of President Bush earlier this year in which he misquoted the Democratic Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV). Investigative bloggers at Daily Kos and AmericaBlog.org discovered that Guckert owned male escort sites, and was himself a male prostitute.

The now-blogger has also been accused of lifting copy from press releases and other reporters.

A Massachusetts editor and reporter have accused Guckert of plagiarism, which RAW STORY reported in March. The watchdog Media Matters for America has also found that many of Guckert’s stories lifted directly from White House press releases.

Talon News, which shut down after the fracas over Gannon erupted, was self-avowedly Republican. Bobby Eberle, the site's founder, told the Washington Post, "We make no bones about it: It's a partisan site."

In a February letter to President Bush, several Senate Democrats raised concern about Gannon in connection with what they believe is an attempt to “buy” coverage.

“The Gannon/Guckert affair is disturbing because of what we have recently learned about apparent efforts by some in your Administration to try to "buy" favorable news coverage,” the Democrats wrote. “These other efforts include paying news personalities … large sums of money to promote your Administration's education and marriage initiatives, and using taxpayer dollars to produce video news releases promoting the new prescription drug benefit for Medicare beneficiaries and other policies the Administration regards as accomplishments.”

The Administration has defended such efforts, and has sought to downplay their significance.

READ THE DOCUMENTS

The first set of times for each date is Guckert's login and logout. The second set is the briefing time. Research conducted by Raw Story researcher Muriel Kane. No briefing does not necessarily mean no briefing took place, only that none was scheduled by the White House press office. We have tried to make note of other briefings held on the dates there was no White House press briefing.

*ANALYSIS UPDATED -- 12:24 A.M. Dates without briefings reduced to thirty.

2/25/03 11:46 - 1:25 (briefing 12:26-1:03)
2/26 9:56 - 2:17 (unusually long) (briefing 1:25-1:53)
2/27 11:49 - 1:34 (no briefing)
2/28 11:20 - 1:26 (briefing 12:35-1:10)

3/3/03 9:51 - 1:32 (unusually long) (briefing 12:21-1:00)
3/4 11:48 - 1:45 (briefing 12:46-1:20)
3/5 11:56 - 1:57 (briefing 12:21-1:00)
3/6 11:58 - 12:42 (no briefing)
3/6 9:11 pm exit - no entry (Bush press conference, 8 pm)
3/7 3:22 pm exit -- no entry (briefing 2:20-3:00)
3/10 12:47 - 3:11 (briefing 1:23-2:10)
3/11 12:25 - 1:47 (briefing at 12:38 - no end time given)
3/12 12:55 - 2:40 (briefing 1:20-1:59)
3/13 12:12 - 1:55 (briefing 12:40-1:19)
3/14 12:02 - 1:49 (briefing 12:35-1:06)
3/17 12:01 - 1:30 (no briefing)
3/18 12:09 - 1:31 (briefing 12:21-1:05)
3/19 9:38 - 3:27 (unusually long) (12:15-12:59) (Bush speech, 10 pm)
3/20 12:19 - 1:38 (briefing 12:32-1:15)
3/21 10:52 - 12:31 (briefing 2:31-3:12 -- doesn't match)
3/24 1:02 - 2:43 (briefing 1:00-1:44)
3/25 1:45 - 3:30 (briefing 2:30-3:15)
3/28 12:34 - 3:51 (unusually long) (briefing 12:35-1:15)

4/4/03 12:18 - 1:31 (12:20-12:59)
4/9 1:48 - 3:48 (2:32-3:20)
4/10 12:14 - 2:00 (12:20-1:03)
4/11 12:24 - 1:52 (12:15-12:45) (arrives late)
4/14 12:34 - 1:46 (12:30-1:15) (arrives late)
4/21 3:33 - 4:19 (no briefing)
4/22 11:36 - 1:37 (12:30-1:14)
4/23 12:16 - 2:26 (1:17-1:55)
4/25 11:21 - 1:25 (12:19-1:00)
4/28 3:01 - 4:40 (11:08-11:23 -- doesn't match)
4/29 11:25 - 1:10 (12:23-12:58)
4/30 11:37 - 3:14 (unusually long) (12:32-1:19)

5/6/03 11:27 - 12:56 (11:50-12:30)
5/7 11:53 - 1:29 (12:30-1:10)
5/8 1:09 - 7:10 (unusually long) (1:45-2:26)
5/9 9:49 - 11:38 (no briefing)
5/14 12:02 - 1:47 (12:35-1:15)
5/14 5:15 pm - 6:56 pm (second evening visit)
5/15 12:27 - 2:25 (1:08-1:47)
5/16 12:05 - 1:40 (12:35-1:19)
5/20 12:27 - 2:04 (12:55-1:34)
5/27 11:56 - 1:31 (12:23-1:05)
5/28 11:50 - 12:53 (12:05-12:44)
5/28 3:26 - 4:53 (second visit)
5/29 11:42 - 1:43 (12:20-1:00)

6/10/03 12:13 - 1:19 (12:33-1:12)
6/17 12:29 - 1:41 (12:32-1:11)
6/18 12:16 - 1:42 (12:50-1:34)
6/22 3:32 - 4:49 (no briefing)
6/23 1:41 - 2:21 (no briefing)
6/25 12:16 - 1:01 (12:30-12:55)
6/26 11:32 - 12:35 (11:45-12:24)

7/1/03 11:25 - 1:42 (12:50-1:26)
7/2 11:50 - 1:20 (12:35-1:12)
7/3 3:04 - 4:16 (Condi Rice briefing, 3:40-4:10)
7/14 11:33 - 1:32 (Ari's goodbye party) (12:03-12:56)
7/15 12:15 (no exit) (12:38-1:23)
7/16 12:26 - 2:05 (12:50-1:20)
7/17 4:43 - 6:13 (12:36-1:17 -- doesn't match)
7/22 12:23 - 1:53 (12:58-1:35)
7/23 12:21 - 2:23 (1:17-2:07)
7/25 2:08 - 3:30 (2:39-3:15)
7/27 3:08 - 5:24 (no briefing)
7/28 12:53 - 2:04 (briefing 10:12-10:23 -- doesn't match)
7/30 12:13 - 12:45 (no briefing) (Bush press conference earlier than that)

8/1/03 12:18 (no exit) (12:24-12:54)
8/1 12:39 - 1:20 (two sets of times if put together seem to match the briefing)

9/2/03 12:37 (A4 HC Entry Lane, no exit) (12:42-1:23)
9/3 12:10 - 1:18 (12:30-1:10)
9/10 12:17 - 1:32 (12:49-1:23)
9/16 12:23 - 1:59 (1:00-1:39)
9/17 12:12 - 1:55 (1:00-1:41)
9/22 1:54 - 3:06 (no briefing) (Bush meets with Iraqis, remarks end 4:35)
9/25 12:49 - 1:53 (12:48-1:35)
9/26 12:09 - 2:24 (12:36-1:15)
9/29 12:09 - 1:10 (12:18-1:03)

10/1/03 11:51 - 1:37 (12:44-1:30)
10/2 11:52 (no exit) (12:47-1:26)
10/6 12:58, 6:10 (no exit; checks in twice but doesn't check out)
10/7 12:46 - 2:03 (12:58-1:46)
10/8 12:10 - 1:27 (12:16-12:42)
10/14 12:22 (no exit) (12:40-1:14)
10/27 12:32 - 1:33 (12:39-1:15)
10/28 10:54 - 12:22 (Bush press conference 11:15-12:03)
10/29 12:20 - 1:08 (12:20-12:57)

11/6/03 12:09 - 1:09 (12:35-1:04)
11/12 12:09 - 1:58 (1:10-1:47)
11/14 12:54 - 2:07 (1:36-2:00)
11/21 5:25 - 6:49 (no briefing)
11/24 8:49 - 9:43 (no briefing)

12/2/03 2:08 - 3:29 (no briefing)
12/3 12:03 - 1:11 (12:32-1:06)
12/7 3:25 (no exit - entry via A4 HC Entry Lane) (no briefing)
12/9 12:33 - 1:45 (12:55-1:21)
12/10 12:05 - 1:23 (12:35-1:15)
12/12 11:51 - 1:35 (12:15-12:52)
12/15 10:45 - 12:42 (Bush press conference 11:15-12:03)
12/18 12:44 - 2:28 (2:05-2:43)
12/19 12:21 - 12:56 (B4 Entry Lane 2) (12:30-12:50)
12/19 1:36 - 2:13 (second visit)
12/22 12:15 - 1:23 (12:28-1:01)

1/14/04 12:30 - 1:33 (12:41-1:15)
1/16 12:08 - 12:48 (12:11-12:44)
1/23 11:52 - 1:12 (12:33-1:06)
1/28 11:53 - 1:26 (12:50-1:20)
1/30 12:30 - 1:23 (12:37-1:09)

2/2/04 12:32 - 1:35 (12:48-1:28)
2/3 12:44 - 1:55 (12:54-1:20)
2/4 11:50 - 1:38 (12:56-1:36)
2/6 11:58 - 1:44 (Bush announcement 1:32-37)
2/10 11:50 - 1:55 (12:53-1:38)
2/11 11:57 - 1:09 (12:30-1:02)
2/13 12:07 - 1:08 (12:30-1:02)
2/18 12:04 - 1:29 (12:36-1:08)
2/19 12:05 - 1:30 (12:37-1:14)
2/20 12:32 - 1:29 (12:33-1:03)
2/23 12:55 - 1:17 (12:43-1:10) (arrives late)
2/24 12:06 - 1:52 (1:00-1:36)
2/27 1:55 - 3:39 (2:18-2:48)

3/1/04 12:50 - 2:04 (1:20-2:00)
3/2 12:29 - 1:23 (12:46-1:14)
3/9 12:40 - 1:49 (1:03-1:37)
3/12 12:54 - 1:00 (unusually short) (no briefing)
3/16 12:43 - 1:52 (1:10-1:46)
3/17 12:18 - 1:56 (1:26-1:50)
3/22 12:03 - 2:10 (1:24-2:04)
3/23 12:03 - 1:34 (12:47-1:10)
3/24 12:17 - 2:03 (1:10-2:02)
3/30 exit only, 12:04 (no briefing)
3/30 4:22 - 4:55 (no briefing)

4/1/04 12:42 - 1:57 (1:25-1:53)
4/13 9:42 - 10:29 (no briefing) (Bush speaks to reporters on the WH lawn)
4/13 6:59 pm - 9:49 pm (Bush press conference)
4/16 10:51 - 3:08 (2:41-3:09) (Bush/Blair press conference)
4/21 12:14 - 1:00 (12:31-1:00)
4/27 12:10 (no exit, entry via A4 HC Entry Lane instead of Entry Lane 2) (12:27-12:59)
4/28 12:26 - 1:47 (1:20-1:47)
4/29 11:10 no exit (well before briefing) (Bush and Cheney testify to 9/11 commission)
4/29 2:15 - 2:57 (2:23-2:56)
4/30 1:24 - 2:47 (2:22-2:45)

5/5/04 12:02 - 2:25 (1:38-2:16) (arrives unusually early)
5/6 12:01 - 3:35 (12:20-12:54) (stays unusually late)
5/10 1:22 - 2:50 (2:02-2:33)
5/12 11:56 - 1:03 (12:34-12:55)
5/24 no entry, exit logged twice, 2:04:43 and 2:04:51 (1:14-1:46)
5/26 12:09 - 1:51 (1:15-1:51)
5/28 2:17 - no exit (3:02-3:34)

6/1/04 9:20 - 12:03 (Condi Rice briefing, 9:45)
6/3 9:02 - 10:32 (no briefing)
6/14 10:02 - 11:45 (no briefing)
6/15 11:03 - no exit (2:25-2:52) (there well before briefing)
6/15 5:19 - 6:38 (B4 Exit Lane instead of usual A4 Exit Reader) (after briefing)
(Bush and Karzai in Press Availability)
6/16 2:50 - 4:34 (no briefing)
6/17 11:57 - 1:25 (12:47-1:20)
6/21 9:27 - 10:03 (no briefing)
6/22 12:13 - 5:04 (unusually long) (Al Gonzales briefing, 3:12-4:55)
6/24 1:27 - 2:13 (Condi Rice briefing, 1:51-2:03)
6/30 12:21 - 1:55 (1:15-1:55)

7/1/04 12:22 - 1:36 (1:01-1:37)
7/2 9:43 - 11:53 (no briefing)
7/6 12:15 - 12:58 (12:33-12:48)
7/8 1:07 - 2:21 (1:53-2:22)
7/15 12:48 - 1:48 (12:54-1:23)
7/19 1:04 - 2:24 (1:52-2:22)
7/21 12:22 - 2:02 (1:10-1:40)
7/22 10:11 - 10:47 (no briefing)
7/29 6:03 - 6:21 (no briefing)

8/2/04 10:59 - 1:47 (1:02-1:39) (there 2 hours early)
8/9 12:07 - 1:03 (12:31-12:59)
8/17 11:06 - 12:31 (no briefing)
8/27 9:10 - 9:37 (no briefing)

9/10/04 11:19 - 12:55 (no briefing)
9/15 12:17 - 1:56 (1:11-1:45)
9/22 11:57 - 12:34 (no briefing)
9/23 11:19 - 1:14 (Bush press conference with Allawi)

11/2/04 1:31 - 2:20 (no briefing) (Election Day)
11/4 9:16 - 12:11 (Bush press conference 11:17-11:57)
11/8 11:50 - 1:08 (12:20-12:52)
11/10 12:35 - 12:58 (12:26-12:45) (arrives late)
11/12 10:57 -- no exit (Bush press conference with Blair)
11/16 12:26 - 1:51 (12:20-1:32) (arrives late)
11/17 12:07 - 2:14 (12:38-1:10)
11/29 12:23 - 1:49 (12:56-1:32)

12/6/04 12:37 - 1:59 (1:03-1:36)
12/8 12:07 - 1:41 (1:05-1:39)
12/10 12:32 - 1:51 (1:06-1:32)
12/13 12:18 - 1:36 (12:50-1:18)
12/14 12:46 - 1:53 (12:48-1:23)
12/17 12:16 - 1:48 (12:47-1:14)
12/20 10:05 - 11:49 (Bush press conference, 10:32-11:25)
12/21 12:00 - 2:04 (12:35-1:10)
12/22 12:04 - 1:08 (no briefing)
12/23 12:31 - 1:26 (no briefing)

1/18/05 12:05 - 1:36 (12:28-12:57)
1/19 12:26 - 1:38 (12:48-1:19)
1/25 12:19 - 1:04 (12:23-12:53)
1/26 9:54 - 10:56 (Bush press conference, 10:00-10:47)
1/31 12:27 - 1:24 (12:45-1:16)

2/1/05 12:11 no exit (12:18-12:47)
2/7 12:10 - 3:00 (1:45-1:06)

336 Comments

Correction: The first edition of this article incorrectly referred to "presidential briefings," instead of "White House press briefings." As our research continues, we will update the date log listing to reflect additional briefings other than White House press briefings held on dates Guckert visited.

Article originally published Apr. 24, 2005.

http://rawstory.com/exclusives/byrn..._gannon_424.htm

He could have been seeing Mehlman, McClelland,, Rove all of them seem to be a bit light in the loafers. Or he could be screwing Bush or Cheney like they have been screwing us.

Also notice that the Cecelia, Grammie crowd never throw their mean spirited barbs in any direction of Gannon's.

Imagine what they would be saying if it was a democratic president !
Lordy lordy !

Posted by: Why do you care what my name is at July 18, 2007 9:20 PM

What sort of "mean-spirited barb" do you want me to say about Gannon/Glucker...some sort of sodomy or fellatio reference because the guy is gay?

Nope. I leave those kind of "barbs" to open-minded liberals.

Ceceilia... so you are perfectly fine with a male whore having access to the WH for no reason ?

"Mean spirited"? That rings a bell for some reason.

Oh, I remember. It was the Dem talking point a while back. The mantra was 'mean spirited Repubs".

Whatizname, how kind of you. You must know that I always enjoy a walk down memory lane.

Grammie

O'leilly,

Get back home, bitch. I got something for you.

This is a new low for this website. BORING. I think I'll go rewind the toilet paper.

Well, O'mengele, although you addressed Cecelia I'm sure you won't object to my answering this:

"Ceceilia... so you are perfectly fine with a male whore having access to the WH for no reason ?
Posted by: Bill O'lielly at July 18, 2007 9:43 PM "

I have no more or less an objection to 'male whores' having access to the White House than I do to 'female whores' having access to the White House.

However, if you expanded the question a bit to include Congress Barney Frank might have some very pertinent thoughts on it. :)

Grammie

Really Grammie,, a male whore had unlimited access to the WH ?

Ceceilia... so you are perfectly fine with a male whore having access to the WH for no reason ?

Posted by: Bill O'lielly at July 18, 2007 9:43 PM

No, it was WDYCWMNI accusing me of making "mean-spirited barbs" to a guy who routinely wishes violent death of those who don't hold his political views, that I took issue with, O'Liely.

As for the Raw Story site piece,I'll wait and see what Conyers and company find out.

O'Liely,

Since you are a former MSNBC employee, I'd like your insight here.

Is it possible that Olbermann takes the night off on Countdown so another host can cover blue blog inspired stories like the slam on Mrs. Vitter, without Olberman taking the heat?

Also notice that the Cecelia, Grammie crowd never throw their mean spirited barbs in any direction of Gannon's. (why)

***

Now that is LOL funny. Why even has to victimize victims even more just so that he can use vile language. I think I know what sexual abuse is. I don't need a picture. I saw the other thread big coward. Maybe you need to do a little self-inventory and check your own motives as you type. I guess I should be thankful that you didn't cut and paste a description. Is it fun for you to conjure up the image? Have you investigated the percentage of abuse in other religions and associations, professions? Maybe you should tune in to "Catch a Predator."

Sharon, seems like we are cross posting on two threads.

You made the point better than I did.

RK also made an excellent point.

Whatizname is the 'Poster Child' that illustrates the intellectual dishonesty and cowardice of using multiple names.

Grammie

Grammie,

I hear ya about the multiple names. I hate keeping up with more than one thread but when I see my name, I feel compelled to respond. I am still waiting for a response to a gem of a comment by Madeline Albright. Darn, I'll have to figure out where it is. It was in reference to sanctions and how they were harming Iraqi children. She said that it was a hard choice but worth it or something. The article where I retrived it certainly didn't sing Bush's praises; it really concentrated on the issue of children. But an interesting point is that almost no record of the comment exists. It was from a 60 Minutes show.

Sharon, you name the thread and we will meet up if we are still both here tonight.

I remember seeing that from you. I believe she cited 500,000 children dying from the sanctions and that was in 1998 or 1999.

You always have such good info and links.

Grammie

Grammie,

I think I'll stick to this link. It's shorter. I'll check back in later. I am the night owl around the castle, but I sure do pay for it the next day.

Sharon, I think you may have gotten the quote from here:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1084

Hope this helps.

Grammie

nobody cares, shouldn't you be attacking Catholics while not saying shit about muslims slaughtering people all over the world?

Clucker gets aroused by leopard print dress. HA! friggen loser.

Hey RK, shouldn't you either be hiding your face in disgrace or answering the 5-6 questions people have been consistently asking you for weeks ?

You really do have no shame.

Posted by: at July 19, 2007 12:54 AM

What questions "people" have asked me, you mean "you?" "People" is more than one, "you" are one.

Don't you guys get it? It's OK to call Mrs. Vitter a Ho, because she's white.

Choosing a leopard print dress over a solid color may not have been the best choice, given the subject of the press conference, but who gives a crap what she was wearing? BTW, the video of that segment is unavailable at Countdown's front page. So is the Jon Lovitz & Andy Dick video, dammit!

Don't you guys get it? It's OK to call Mrs. Vitter a Ho, because she's white.

Posted by: Richard at July 19, 2007 2:41 AM

and she's married to a Republican...

whats the point of talking on this thread. people from the right will say he is an asshole, people from the left will defend him while saying his is objective. who fuckin cares. fuck you all get a new hobby other than posting online. i cannot believe i read all these comments. shows what a fuckin drunken fool i am. but i am in china drinking 30 cent beers and its 340 in the afternoone and i have nothing to do till 6. by the way fuck olberman he is the biggest dueche on television besides sean hannity. they should both be put in a rubber room and given one knife and left their until they kill eachother and one of them has to eat the other to survive.

All this fuss about a boring ol' dress.
Now who's missing context, using facts without test?
Mr. Vitter and his mistress led a pampered life
The 'ho' on-screen: for the dress, not Vitter's wife.
But hey, let's just make up more shit to bless!

Yeah, I thought it was a big non-story to begin with.

I feel bad for Wendy Vitter, having to endure a scandal like this because of her "Family Values" husband. And now this.

Give me some real news, leave the innocent folks alone.

fuck this website.

Give me some real news, leave the innocent folks alone.

Posted by: Ray Bradbury at July 19, 2007 4:43 AM

I'm not surprised my favorite author would feel this way!

Amen, Ray!... (Loved Dandelion Wine...)

Give me some real news, leave the innocent folks alone.
Posted by: Ray Bradbury at July 19, 2007 4:43 AM

I'm not surprised my favorite author would feel this way!
Amen, Ray!... (Loved Dandelion Wine...)
Posted by: Cecelia at July 19, 2007 6:34 AM

What Cecelia is really saying....
"mommie, daddy, everyone here at this blog, I CAN read! I AM smart! Don't let my past ignorant-filled comments fool you. Look how SMART & CULTURED I am! Looky looky lookly (nevermind that most folks read this book back in High School---I did go to college too, my much older husband paid for it) I am sooooo smart. I'm terrifically witty here on this blog.

Olbermann fans are women and men of questionable gender definition.

“This is a real outrage. The Hollywood left is redefining the most basic institution in human history, and our two U.S. Senators won’t do anything about it.

We need a U.S. Senator who will stand up for Louisiana values, not Massachusetts’s values. I am the only Senate Candidate to coauthor the Federal Marriage Amendment; the only one fighting for its passage. I am the only candidate proposing changes to the senate rules to stop liberal obstructionists from preventing an up or down vote on issues like this, judges, energy, and on and on. And I'm the only candidate who hires hookers to watch me poop diapers. Whoops. I mean....scratch that last part.”

The madam is on trial for, among other things, running a prostitution ring. Her defense is (essentially) that the women who worked for her, only provided "companionship," not sex. If Vitter truly wanted to accept responsibility, he should volunteer to be a prosecution witness and testify about the "services" he received. If, as Stone suggests, prosecuting HIM cannot be done b/c of the statute of limitations, he faces no risk. Not that complicated unless you are a hypocritical republican hack whose wife claims she would cut your cock off if you cheated on her.

It wasn't a leopard skin dress.
It was just a plain white dress that her husband pooped on.

Wendy Vitter is the one who is on record with all the vitriolic comments about the clinton.

Had she said back in 1998 that it was a private matter and who are others to judge, then she'd be entitled to more comity.

but she deserves none and will get none.

So let me see if I get this straight. Discussing A Democrat's sex life is bad. Discussing a Republican's sex life and resulting scandal is a wonderful thing? I think the term for that isn't "ho" but hypocrite.

So, why is screwing a prostitute (something that is illegal) mitigated by characterizing it simply as:

"...a Senator who had cheated on her."

Oh, I know why. It was written by a partisan hack.

So now hiring hookers is just a private sexual matter between a man and wife? It's just that person's "sex life?" Funny, I kind of thought it was a crime. I kind of thought it was even worse if you already had been caught but lied about it and blamed it on your political enemies. I kind of thought it was even worse if you were a morals crusader.

Guess not. Shows what fucked up San Francisco values I have.

Poop any good diapers lately, Brandon?

Thanks, lamo!

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2006-8/1210139/vitternanny.jpg

The important thing, David Is that they feel ashamed about it. We don't have to all be monogamous heterosexual Christians, as long as we at least pretend that we are, and expect other people to be. In fact, the more you slip up, the more you should give back by heaping extra shame on others who are less than perfect.
As long as you feel ashamed for wanting it, ashamed after giving in, and most of all, ashamed when you get caught, you are doing all that any good Christian can do.

The only thing these poor, lonely, sexually underdeveloped conservatives have to be ashamed of is shame itself. Or, at least, the ways that they seem to have of dealing with their shame.

What Cecelia is really saying....
"mommie, daddy, everyone here at this blog, I CAN read! I AM smart! Don't let my past ignorant-filled comments fool you. Look how SMART & CULTURED I am! Looky looky lookly (nevermind that most folks read this book back in High School---I did go to college too, my much older husband paid for it) I am sooooo smart. I'm terrifically witty here on this blog.

Posted by: at July 19, 2007 12:31 PM

Go on-- you know-- the part where I think you're a silly a putz....

^yawn, what a snooze you have turned into lately....zzz

^yawn, what a snooze you have turned into lately....zzz

Posted by: at July 19, 2007 7:35 PM

Is "yawn" your default quip?

Diapers? Nope. Don't need them. But it's quite apparent you're very full of shit and might have real need of them. If this would have happened to a Democratic candidate, you people would be screaming from the rooftops, just as you did when Clinton had sex with an intern and then lied about it under oath, that it was a "private matter between him and his wife." I guess irony is lost on you, just as common sense is.

Diapers? Nope. Don't need them. But it's quite apparent you're very full of shit and might have real need of them. If this would have happened to a Democratic candidate, you people would be screaming from the rooftops, just as you did when Clinton had sex with an intern and then lied about it under oath, that it was a "private matter between him and his wife." I guess irony is lost on you, just as common sense is.

Posted by: Brandon at July 19, 2007 7:41 PM

Brandon, don't you think the congressman opened his wife up to this sort of commentary by invoking her name in the first place in his mea culpa?

Didn't HE make her fair game for these sorts of negative comments and analysis?

Didn't HE make her fair game for these sorts of negative comments and analysis?

Posted by: Cecelia at July 19, 2007 7:46 PM

That's not my stand.

I'm asking you.... based upon your past responses to such things...

Is "yawn" your default quip?
Posted by: Cecelia at July 19, 2007 7:40 PM

When it comes to your lame responses, it seems appropriate. zzz

Just saw the Countdown preview from Ed, another Special Comment---good grief---somebody dig up the quote where Olbermann says he won't do too many special comments because he doesn't want to become a parody of himself. I think that boat has long left the dock...

When it comes to your lame responses, it seems appropriate. zzz

Posted by: at July 19, 2007 7:50 PM

You're slow on your feet in other words. :D

Sorry Cecelia-I no longer answer or respond to any comment that you address to me. You simply aren't worth my time, energy or effort. Any response to you would be validating your existence and giving you the type of attention that it's so obvious that you are desperate for. Look to someone else to give it to you. Perhaps your rich old husband? Oh, right, that's why you log so many hours at this board seeking validation to begin with, you don't get it in your "real" world.

Sorry Cecelia-I no longer answer or respond to any comment that you address to me. You simply aren't worth my time, energy or effort. Any response to you would be validating your existence and giving you the type of attention that it's so obvious that you are desperate for. Look to someone else to give it to you. Perhaps your rich old husband? Oh, right, that's why you log so many hours at this board seeking validation to begin with, you don't get it in your "real" world.

Posted by: Brandon at July 19, 2007 9:55 PM

That makes sense in a way, Brandon. Why tax yourself with thinking, when you have pandering surrogates who can throw out the illogical sentence of two in your stead.

Perhaps your rich old husband? Oh, right, that's why you log so many hours at this board seeking validation to begin with, you don't get it in your "real" world.

Posted by: Brandon at July 19, 2007 9:55 PM

YOU put up a myth about my being a gold-digger and having a rich husband and NOW you imply that I'm illogical because I don't behave as through it is true?

Surrogates or no... ONLY you are capable of that sort of reasoning, Brandon... I'll miss you... :D

And now she's convinced that anyone who disagrees with her is a Brandon surrogate. I guess we can add paranoia to her long list of psychological disorders.

>Sorry Cecelia-I no longer answer or respond to any comment that you address to me. You simply aren't worth my time, energy or effort. Any response to you would be validating your existence and giving you the type of attention that it's so obvious that you are desperate for. Look to someone else to give it to you. Perhaps your rich old husband? Oh, right, that's why you log so many hours at this board seeking validation to begin with, you don't get it in your "real" world.

Posted by: Brandon at July 19, 2007 9:55 PM

Isn't this entire post in conclict with itself?

I can't say much in Cecelia's favor, but when you want to criticize someone so much that your entire post contradicts itself, I can only stand (well, in this case, sit) in awe of Brandon's ability to not even stay true to the words he's uttering at the time he is uttering them.

Isn't there some sort of award we can bestow upon him for that amazing feat?

I've gotta laugh at you pathetic losers...

First, you squeal like the girls that you are that Gore is using too much electricity. Then, it turns out that it came from "green" sources that he paid extra for...

Lately, you whiners have been complaining about the Chilean sea bass that he ate being endangered. Well, it's back in your face, children:

"Al Gore, the world's most high profile green campaigner, was at the centre of an embarrassing row yesterday after the serving of a rare fish at his daughter's Beverly Hills wedding..."

"...The reaction was swift: writing in in the Australian Daily Telegraph, Rebecca Keeble of Humane Society International, a conservation pressure group, complained of the danger to the species from "from illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing activities"..."

"...And in the meantime, she acidly suggested, "Al Gore could choose something else to eat". Her attack on the former vice-president, and his implied hypocrisy, were rapidly picked up by bloggers around the world..."

Here's the important part, losers:

"...But the fish enjoyed by the Gores were not endangered or illegally caught.

Rather, the restaurant later confirmed, they had come from one of the world's few well-managed, sustainable populations of toothfish, and caught and documented in compliance with Marine Stewardship Council regulations. The Gores' spokesman, Kalee Kreider, admitted that the fish has been on the menu, but said: "The Gores absolutely agree with this humane society and the rest of the environmental community about illegally caught Chilean sea bass..."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/07/19/eagore119.xml&f=1

Gore is like the roadrunner; and, you losers are one collective coyote...

The madam is on trial for, among other things, running a prostitution ring. Her defense is (essentially) that the women who worked for her, only provided "companionship," not sex. If Vitter truly wanted to accept responsibility, he should volunteer to be a prosecution witness and testify about the "services" he received. If, as Stone suggests, prosecuting HIM cannot be done b/c of the statute of limitations, he faces no risk.

Posted by: at July 19, 2007 2:57 PM

but that's just DC - apparently there are a lot of New Orleans whores that are "fingering" him.

But it's not the Madam or any of the New Orleans "whores" who Countdown chose to imply was a "ho" here-it was Vitter's wife. I wonder what you would say if a Democratic politician was caught in a similar situation and his wife was then called a "ho" for the way she dressed? I guess if Olbermann did it though it would be hunky-dory.

YOU put up a myth about my being a gold-digger and having a rich husband....
Posted by: Cecelia at July 19, 2007 10:18 PM

^Brandon DID NOT "put up a myth" sweetie, um, YOU did. Remember, in your intensity to defend Ms. Tur, YOU revealed your own "sensitivity" to the issue.
Sucks getting caught in another lie, doesn't sweetie, well, it ain't your first lie, it certainly won't be your last.....:D

Let me clue you into something, although we aren't living in the Trump Tower, to say the least.... I fell in love with my husband partly for the same reasons, and I have admired his zeal and god given abilities more every year of our marriage. Gold-digger that I am, I even took advantage of them by letting him support me through my last year and a half of college. I've exploited him even more by largely living off his income, even though I could support myself and were I start start a business, I wouldn't fail to exploit every connection he has... I even think his love handles are cute...
Posted by: Cecelia at May 13, 2007 12:44 PM

... it's not the Madam or any of the New Orleans "whores" who Countdown chose to imply was a "ho" here ....

I should hope no one would imply a brothel owner and the employees of a brotherl were whores. I should think that would be stated as a fact.

^Brandon DID NOT "put up a myth" sweetie, um, YOU did. Remember, in your intensity to defend Ms. Tur, YOU revealed your own "sensitivity" to the issue.
Sucks getting caught in another lie, doesn't sweetie, well, it ain't your first lie, it certainly won't be your last.....:D

Let me clue you into something, although we aren't living in the Trump Tower, to say the least.... I fell in love with my husband partly for the same reasons, and I have admired his zeal and god given abilities more every year of our marriage. Gold-digger that I am, I even took advantage of them by letting him support me through my last year and a half of college. I've exploited him even more by largely living off his income, even though I could support myself and were I start start a business, I wouldn't fail to exploit every connection he has... I even think his love handles are cute...
Posted by: Cecelia at May 13, 2007 12:44 PM

Posted by: :D at July 20, 2007 11:40 AM

With that logic, any out of school spouse (of either sex) who paid the college bills for their in-school spouse would be married to a "golddigger" and any housewife or Mr Mom would be a golddigger.

Pretty soon you'll be expanding your namecalling of golddigger to half the Western world in order to deflect crticism of your own action of saying hateful things about a woman merely because she's with a man you dislike.

But it's not the Madam or any of the New Orleans "whores" who Countdown chose to imply was a "ho" here-it was Vitter's wife. I wonder what you would say if a Democratic politician was caught in a similar situation and his wife was then called a "ho" for the way she dressed? I guess if Olbermann did it though it would be hunky-dory.

Posted by: Brandon at July 20, 2007 9:04 AM

Evidently implying that a Republican woman was dressed like a whore is just terrible but your actually stating that the girlfriend of your opponent is sleeping with him in order to benefit her career-- (selling herself like a whore) is just hunky dory.

Just like your blogging on Olbermann and Countdown is holding him and show accountable in your book, but my blogging on your official OW words is "obsession".

Get used to Brandon, that's not the only thing you and Olbermann have in common...

Cecellia on behalf of everyone here at Olbermannwatch who has watched you hijack each thread that Brandon ever begins or posts in, please stop reading his posts. Brandon didn't mention Tur in his Vitter post you did. You're the hypocrite here at this moment and your constant harping on this is getting way overblown. You told me in another thread to stop reading your posts. Please follow your own advice and stop reading Brandon's or are you too much of a hypocrite to follow your own advice?

Cecellia on behalf of everyone here at Olbermannwatch who has watched you hijack each thread that Brandon ever begins or posts in, please stop reading his posts. Brandon didn't mention Tur in his Vitter post you did. You're the hypocrite here at this moment and your constant harping on this is getting way overblown. You told me in another thread to stop reading your posts. Please follow your own advice and stop reading Brandon's or are you too much of a hypocrite to follow your own advice?

Posted by: The Real Truth at July 21, 2007 9:40 AM

Well, since I'm complaining about the inconsistencies in Brandon posts as contrasted with your complaints about somehow being forced to read them.... there's not anything that's analogous there. What else is new...

Just like it's not new that in your reach to label me a hypocrite, you ignore that Brandon was calling other people hypocrites for behaving towards Mrs Vitter as he had behaved towards Katy Tur.

You go on to ignore that in posting the stuff about Mrs Vitter, Brandon assumes he's holding accountable Olbermann, his show, and anyone who disagrees that Mrs. Vitter was treated unfairly.

That's fine, but it's not unreasonable to also give Brandon's remarks just the same scrutiny. In all the finger pointing at me, he has yet to explain why it's okay for him to essentially call Katy Tur a whore and then to call other foks hypocrites for saying that Mrs. Vitter had dressed like one.

Oh, he says he appreciates your help in this, and goodness knows he would. However, all three of us know this isn't about Brandon to you. He's just the little guppie you use in order to insult me.

Isn't it time you threw him back, got honest, and got around to really challenging me on something other than someone you really regard as a small fry?

Why do I picture Dana Carvey's "THE CHURCH LADY" typing away furiously every time I read one of Cecelia's posts.

BTW, Cecelia, in the comment from ":D" I think you missed the point that :D was making: which was you LIED (accussing Brandon of starting the "gold-digging myth"). Nice try though, ignoring THAT fact and changing the subject. Too bad most here can read.

time I read one of Cecelia's posts.

BTW, Cecelia, in the comment from ":D" I think you missed the point that :D was making: which was you LIED (accussing Brandon of starting the "gold-digging myth"). Nice try though, ignoring THAT fact and changing the subject. Too bad most here can read.

Posted by: Hypocrite Brigade at July 21, 2007 11:29 AM

So you're suggesting that my point in the post I wrote about my husband wasn't to suggest that one or the other party, in every relationship, helps the other to one degree or another, and in various ways at various times..... but instead my point was to call myself a "golddigger"?.... or to label housewives with working husbands as golddiggers?... or maybe just to call people golddigers who are helped through school or in another career-wise ways by their spouses?... Oh, you're brilliant...

No, I'm afraid THAT sort of reasoning was all Brandon's and his wailing "I have childhood issues with rich privileged girls...but Cecelia's neurotic and Tur only likes Olbermann for his money" STC friend.

Why do I picture Dana Carvey's "THE CHURCH LADY" typing away furiously every time I read one of Cecelia's posts.

Posted by: Hypocrite Brigade at July 21, 2007 11:29 AM

Well, since it's not hypocrisy or sanctimony that you're against or you'd dislike the judgementalism seen against Tur, I can see why this question would be a toughie for you...

Cecelia, what the heck are you wailing about? You clearly said that Brandon started some rumor about you being a gold digger. Someone else found your orginal quote (where you started you own rumor?).

I really could care less about Tur or gold digging or Brandon or STC friend. What I found funny is your obsessive "cat fighting?" against numerous people here (besides the ones you mentioned). And when you take a beating you seem to LIE, which is odd considering it is easy to scroll up and find your orginal posts. Tap a nap Church Lady.

He didn't call Tur a whore, you did. He didn't mention Tur in his posts on Vitter's wife, you did. See the pattern there? Jesus woman, for God's sake get some help. You've got more issues than your average magazine rack.

He didn't call Tur a whore, you did. He didn't mention Tur in his posts on Vitter's wife, you did. See the pattern there? Jesus woman, for God's sake get some help. You've got more issues than your average magazine rack.

Posted by: Fed Up. at July 21, 2007 2:36 PM

What do you think a golddiger is but a woman who is only with a man (and all that entails) solely because she is profitting in some way, moron.

Cecelia, what the heck are you wailing about? You clearly said that Brandon started some rumor about you being a gold digger. Someone else found your orginal quote (where you started you own rumor?).

I really could care less about Tur or gold digging or Brandon or STC friend. What I found funny is your obsessive "cat fighting?" against numerous people here (besides the ones you mentioned). And when you take a beating you seem to LIE, which is odd considering it is easy to scroll up and find your orginal posts. Tap a nap Church Lady.

Posted by: Hypocrite Brigade at July 21, 2007 1:59 PM

No, I said he created a myth about me based on a post I wrote about the ridiculousness of terming what is a natural give and take process in a relationship as golddigging simply because it suited his purpose with Tur. He'd be fighting tooth and nail if someone else had made that claim about some Republican guy's love interest.

It's was a convenient accusation, such as "obsession" is convenient and "stop talking" is convenient on a blogboard where there is discussion about things such as hypocrisy and where there are generally tons of repetitious posts on every thread from Mike, Clucker, and various Nom du Jours insulting Royalking and endless cut-n-pastes and flames about Bush.

So it's more than a bit interesting that you don't stop replying to my posts, even when you're telling me to stop replying to YOURS.

It's interesting too that in all the name calling towards me, the handwringing about my posts, my issues, etc..., why no one will answer the question of why it's okay for Brandon to have called Tur some who is only trading on her youth, charms, looks, sexuality etc. for personal gain, but it's not okay for someone to suggest that Mrs. Vitter dressed like someone who trades their person for gain....

When you guys going to get around to addressing THAT?

YOU put up a myth about my being a gold-digger and having a rich husband and NOW ...
Posted by: Cecelia at July 19, 2007 10:18 PM

It's kind of clear that you are accussing Brandon of starting some gold digging myth about you. But don't let your own words get in the way of your lies:

Let me clue you into something, although we aren't living in the Trump Tower, to say the least.... I fell in love with my husband partly for the same reasons, and I have admired his zeal and god given abilities more every year of our marriage. Gold-digger that I am, I even took advantage of them by letting him support me through my last year and a half of college. I've exploited him even more by largely living off his income, even though I could support myself and were I start start a business, I wouldn't fail to exploit every connection he has... I even think his love handles are cute...
Posted by: Cecelia at May 13, 2007 12:44 PM

YOU put up a myth about my being a gold-digger and having a rich husband and NOW ...
Posted by: Cecelia at July 19, 2007 10:18 PM

No, what I did is write in a satrical way to imbecils who were only too willing to be even more imbecilic by ignoring the satire and going for the gold... as in "goldddigger".

I've explained what I meant numerous times since, then and now, but geniune and sincere truthseekers that you are.... you keep telling me that I really mean did what YOU think.. and that I really defend Tur against the charge because....welll,, I'm one too...

That's myth in lieu of an argument that Brandon and company have put out there. Don't call me a liar for not playing along.

Let me clue you into something, although we aren't living in the Trump Tower, to say the least.... I fell in love with my husband partly for the same reasons, and I have admired his zeal and god given abilities more every year of our marriage. Gold-digger that I am, I even took advantage of them by letting him support me through my last year and a half of college. I've exploited him even more by largely living off his income, even though I could support myself and were I start start a business, I wouldn't fail to exploit every connection he has... I even think his love handles are cute...
Posted by: Cecelia at May 13, 2007 12:44 PM

No, what I did is write in a satrical way...
Posted by: Cecelia at July 21, 2007 4:40 PM
To use your own words, Cecelia:

Yeah, riiiiiiight

That's myth in lieu of an argument that Brandon and company have put out there. Don't call me a liar for not playing along.
Posted by: Cecelia at July 21, 2007 4:40 PM

You're a liar for oh so many other reasons.

Posted by: at July 21, 2007 4:49 PM

Such an indictment from such a sincere truthseeker....

No, what I did is write in a satrical way...
Posted by: Cecelia at July 21, 2007 4:40 PM
To use your own words, Cecelia:

Yeah, riiiiiiight

Posted by: All anons are not the same anon at July 21, 2007 5:05 PM

Yes, Anon, you're so RIGHT in insisting that I truly did mean to confess to being a golddigger...... just as you're right in your implication that folks ought to be able to distinguish between anonymous posters.

Ridiculously, illogically, insincerely, self-servingly, myth propagatingly "right"... :D

One thing is for sure, Cecelia does drive up comments to threads that would normally be ignored. Too bad she can't be part of the solution she preaches so obsessively about.

Let me clue you into something, although we aren't living in the Trump Tower, to say the least.... I fell in love with my husband partly for the same reasons, and I have admired his zeal and god given abilities more every year of our marriage. Gold-digger that I am, I even took advantage of them by letting him support me through my last year and a half of college. I've exploited him even more by largely living off his income, even though I could support myself and were I start start a business, I wouldn't fail to exploit every connection he has... I even think his love handles are cute...
Posted by: Cecelia at May 13, 2007 12:44 PM

No, what I did is write in a satrical way...
Posted by: Cecelia at July 21, 2007 4:40 PM

To use your own words, Cecelia:

Yeah, riiiiiiight

Context IS everything....try again.

It's interesting too that in all the name calling towards me, the handwringing about my posts, my issues, etc..., why no one will answer the question of why it's okay for Brandon to have called Tur some who is only trading on her youth...
Posted by: Cecelia at July 21, 2007 4:04 PM

I have a feeling that this will be like banging my head against a wall, but I'll give it a go.

Cecelia, since J$ & Brandon BOTH wrote pretty much identical threads on the "vitters HO" topic and Brandon did not mention Tur in THIS thread, it seems when YOU keep bringing up YOUR anger concerning Brandon that perhaps THAT is what continually takes the thread off topic. But whatever...spin yourself all you want, you seem to enjoy it.

To use your own words, Cecelia:

Yeah, riiiiiiight

Context IS everything....try again.

Posted by: All anons are not the same anon at July 21, 2007 5:22 PM

Ohhh... I always overestimate you guys.

I see now that I have to explain to you that by "satrical" I didn't mean that my husband didn't do all those things for me, but that I wasn't confessiong or suggesting that this is the equivalent of being a golddigger for any spouse OR those who have come to the point of cohabitation in their relationship -- male or female -- Mr Mom, housewife or keeper of the nest....

Quite the contrary, dope. It's called a relationship. It's typical. It's between two people and they work out the terms of what they want and expect from each other.

But if you must assume the worst about Olbermann's partner, simply because you don't like him, how would I fare any better?

Cecelia, since J$ & Brandon BOTH wrote pretty much identical threads on the "vitters HO" topic and Brandon did not mention Tur in THIS thread, it seems when YOU keep bringing up YOUR anger concerning Brandon that perhaps THAT is what continually takes the thread off topic. But whatever...spin yourself all you want, you seem to enjoy it.

Posted by: Hypocrite Brigade at July 21, 2007 5:26 PM

I never stated that Brandon wrote about Tur in this thread. What I argued was that his reasons for calling others hypocritical in their stance about the treatment Mrs. Vitters received, directly contradicted what he had argued previously about Tur and why it was okay for other folks to take potshot at her..

I asked him to explain this and he said he wasn't talking anymore.... I'll bet... :D

Ohhh... I always overestimate you guys.
Posted by: Cecelia at July 21, 2007 5:35 PM

No, we underestimate you, and you never proof us wrong.

Ohhh... I always overestimate you guys.
Posted by: Cecelia at July 21, 2007 5:35 PM

No, we underestimate you, and you never proof us wrong.

Posted by: at July 21, 2007 5:41 PM

I've yet to see you put up any defense to the difference between how Brandon treated Tur and Mrs. Vitters at all. Just the usual plethora of insults.

I say you're right in one aspect. It would be more logical for me to stop and go argue with Sir Loin about his latest conspiracy theory. He may be a borderline paranoiac, but he's intelligent and genuine.

Unlike the group of you combined...

Isn't the thread about Countdown's use of the "HO" graphic (similar to when Olbermann used a graphic of "a Slut & Battery" concerning Paris Hilton), and NOT whether Brandon dissed Tur in another thread?

Isn't the thread about Countdown's use of the "HO" graphic (similar to when Olbermann used a graphic of "a Slut & Battery" concerning Paris Hilton), and NOT whether Brandon dissed Tur in another thread?

Posted by: Hypocrite Brigrade at July 21, 2007 5:53 PM

You mean Brandon DIDN'T start a blog on about his own hypocrisy?

Oh, well then... pardon me...

(Lord you're dumb!)

(Lord you're dumb!)
Posted by: Cecelia at July 21, 2007 6:23 PM

Thanks for your continued name calling, class act that you are.

I say you're right in one aspect. It would be more logical for me to stop and go argue with Sir Loin about his latest conspiracy theory. He may be a borderline paranoiac, but he's intelligent and genuine.
Posted by: Cecelia at July 21, 2007 5:52 PM

Honey, you have long stopped being logical, intelligent or genuine.

Please go, "sit" at the "BIG" thread and argue with SLOB, believe me, you have looked and continue to look just as ignorant, obsessive & stupid there.

Lord you're dumb!)
Posted by: Cecelia at July 21, 2007 6:23 PM

Thanks for your continued name calling, class act that you are.

Posted by: Hypocrite Brigade at July 21, 2007 6:31 PM

Class act that YOU are, you're way ahead of me the name calling dept.

But thanks for as close as you'll ever get to actually trying to launch an argument in your attempt to defend Brandon by saying he hadn't started a thread on himself... :D

Class act that YOU are, you're way ahead of me the name calling dept.

But thanks for as close as you'll ever get to actually trying to launch an argument in your attempt to defend Brandon by saying he hadn't started a thread on himself... :D

Posted by: Cecelia at July 21, 2007 6:37 PM

awwww...you know, I am going to drop this. You do make it clear that it's sort of pullng the wings off flies.

I'm done.

Comparing you to the Church Lady is name calling? Here I thought you'd find it charming.

Thanks again for pointing out your obsession with Brandon.

BTW: When did Brandon get that job with Countdown, where he makes the screen graphics using the words like HO, Slut, etc. Perhaps only you got that memo.

I'm done.
Posted by: Cecelia at July 21, 2007 6:41 PM

sound of many hands clapping...

C. says she's done. That'll be the day. She'll probably have the words "I'm not a Golddigger" carved on her tombstone.

....STC friend.
Posted by: Cecelia at July 21, 2007 12:46 PM

Leave me out of your crap, Cecelia. I have already dealt with one of your dopey accusations (that I'm homophopic) and pointed out you actually LYING about making said accusation:

Yes, you thought he'd say something controversial=homophobic, yep.
Posted by: Cecelia at July 9, 2007 6:21 PM

I didn't say you were homophobic, Posted by: Cecelia at July 9, 2007 7:04 PM

Olbermann apologized for this error in judgment (he was on vacation when it occurred anyway).

Perhaps you guys should start an Allison Stewart watch website.

On second thought, getting a life might be a better use of your time.

....STC friend.
Posted by: Cecelia at July 21, 2007 12:46 PM

Leave me out of your crap, Cecelia. I have already dealt with one of your dopey accusations (that I'm homophopic) and pointed out you actually LYING about making said accusation:

Yes, you thought he'd say something controversial=homophobic, yep.
Posted by: Cecelia at July 9, 2007 6:21 PM

I didn't say you were homophobic, Posted by: Cecelia at July 9, 2007 7:04 PM

Posted by: STC at July 23, 2007 12:16 PM

Sorry about the C for the O.

At least get the argument right. I said Olbermann's comment about homosexuality being "biological" wasn't homophobic. You said you weren't making that point anyway.... you were just making the point that it would be fodder for all the blogs....

yeah...

Olbermann apologized for this error in judgment (he was on vacation when it occurred anyway).

Perhaps you guys should start an Allison Stewart watch website.

On second thought, getting a life might be a better use of your time.

Posted by: JimK at July 23, 2007 10:15 PM

Well, you know....anyone would think it was wrong to make fun of some second party's clothing and imply they were a "ho"...right?.....

Did you notice Katy Tur was the person in front of him that he pushed out of place?

When/where was this alleged apology?

What's wrong with Wendy Vitter looking sexy? And by the way, she did! I think she wore that particular dress on purpose. I think she wanted to show off her very ample set of boobies and her very nice and well sculpted butt. I think she was trying to send a message to Vitter's skanky ho's that Wendy is David's main play toy and those nasty skanks can't hold a candle to her.

I wanted to write to Wendy and tell her I think David was crazy for going with those skanks when he's got a woman with great tits, ass and legs that she could put a scissor-hold around your neck with. I wanted to tell her if David wasn't givin' it to her enough, I'd be happy to come over and wear her ass for a hat. I'd crawl all up in that thing and lick my way out! I wonder if she shaves her va-jay jay?

In fact, I'd like to do Wendy Vitter and Alison Stewart at the same time. Wendy could sit on that little Alison's face and smother the life out of her while I banged her from the other end.

If David Vitter wanted to go to a real whorehouse, he should have dropped by Fox 'news' headquarters in New York.

Man! Just writing about Wendy Vitter got me hot! I loved that angry, petulant look she gave at the presser. I wish she'd look at me like that while she forces me "down there" and makes me do my homework. God knows, David ain't doin' it.

Now that Olbermann has apologized for Countdown's labeling of Mrs. Vitter as a "ho", wonder how the Olbyloons will spin this to still insist that it was okay for the show to label her as such, when obviously, even Olbermann felt it was wrong and was motivated enough to apologize for it?

Olbermann wasn't running the show. He was on vacation, Brandon.

Jimmy, anyone that thinks Olbermahn didn't know what the content of his show was going to be is deep in denial and a serious Olbypologist. It's his show, remember? He's responsible. What of Malkin did something controversial on O'Reilly's show, you mutts would be screaming bloody murder at O'Reilly. Just like Bush and the war. Everything that happens over in Iraq (negative) is directly attributed to Bush, he is responsible. Clear enough?

Now that Olbermann has apologized for Countdown's labeling of Mrs. Vitter as a "ho", wonder how the Olbyloons will spin this to still insist that it was okay for the show to label her as such, when obviously, even Olbermann felt it was wrong and was motivated enough to apologize for it?

Posted by: Brandon at July 23, 2007 11:42 PM

It's just nice that Olbermann knew it was wrong and didn't argue that Vetter's past statements during the Lewinsky matter, her husband referencing her in interviews, or that she appeared with her husband on television in order to defend him, made her fair game for heinous comments.

Don't you think?

Did you notice Katy Tur was the person in front of him that he pushed out of place?

Posted by: Cecelia at July 23, 2007 10:32 PM

Cecelia, what is it with your obsession with Katy Tur? Do you want to discuss her here or not? I saw you called Hypocrite Brigade obsessed with you on another thread for responding to your comments. But you never answered the questions. Do you not want anyone here responding to your Katy Tur comments/quesions? If so, thats fine, just give us a heads up. It is just that you made mention of this "Olbermann pushed Tur" thing in a few threads.

(You do understand it was shtick for TV, right? I think she seems to really be into him, it was kind of sweet actually).

Also, did you & Brandon finally make up concerning this issue? (Just Wondering & trying catch up on the soap opera here).

WASHINGTON — Angry senators suggested a special prosecutor should investigate misconduct at the Justice Department,

Posted by:patsy at July 24, 2007 10:39 PM

Guess who doesn't want an investigation at the DOJ? Your favorite thief, Sandy Burgler. They were the ones that let him off scott free. I say, Investigate the DOJ! Bring it on!

I am pretty sure Mr. Burger could care less.

As usual, you have the facts wrong. Mr. Burger did not get off "Scott free". He plead guilty to a misdemeanor.

As is also usual, you have the analysis wrong, too. There is this little doctrine called res judicata. Bush hasn't issued an executive order stripping anyone of the rights emanating from this doctrine.

Have you ever been right about anything?
Don't answer, it is a rhetorical question to you.

Does anyone have a clue as to what the causal connection is? Don't answer, it is a rhetorical question to sane people.

Sandy Berger paid a $10,000 fine and got a three-year suspension of his national security clearance.

Posted by: Why do you care what my name is at July 25, 2007 12:25 AM

patsy, he should have been put in front of the firing squad, the "penalty" he got was a walk, got it? I know he is a (d) and you will apologise and downplay all day long. What part of National Security do you not comprehend? All or both?

PLUS Sandy Berger apologized for his crime.

Imagine a republican in this administration doing that ?

Showing remorse for a crime is being a pussy in wingnut world !

Posted by: Why do you care what my name is at July 25, 2007 12:28 AM

Right here is a classic olbyloon/sp response. "Oh, but he apologised, so it's ok, you dummy!" So, if I walked over and shot my neighbor then apologised, do I get a walk?

Berger should have got a firing squad, but Libby/Cheney and outing a spy was just a misunderstanding, right ?

Asshole.

Posted by: at July 25, 2007 1:25 AM

Cheney was convicted of "outing" the pencil pusher, too? Did I miss someting? A "spy," that's too funny. There's only one thing she was spying on and I can't say it here.....

CIA stated Plame was a spy.

RK disagrees.

Nuff said.

Posted by: at July 25, 2007 1:52 AM

Pentagon info-no good.
Cia info-good.

Now I get it. Which ever source claims the (R)'s are bad, you run with. Makes sense.

Get back to with your "Cheney convicted" info as soon as you get it, ok?

....STC friend.
Posted by: Cecelia at July 21, 2007 12:46 PM
Leave me out of your crap, Cecelia. I have already dealt with one of your dopey accusations (that I'm homophopic) and pointed out you actually LYING about making said accusation:
Yes, you thought he'd say something controversial=homophobic, yep.
Posted by: Cecelia at July 9, 2007 6:21 PM
I didn't say you were homophobic, Posted by: Cecelia at July 9, 2007 7:04 PM
Posted by: STC at July 23, 2007 12:16 PM
>At least get the argument right. I said Olbermann's comment about homosexuality being "biological" wasn't homophobic. You said you weren't making that point anyway.... you were just making the point that it would be fodder for all the blogs.... Posted by: Cecelia at July 23, 2007 10:27 PM
Do you have trouble reading, (even your own comment?) you are ASSuming I am homophopic, then lied when you were called on it (with you're OWN comment).. Read the thread in context:

http://www.olbermannwatch.com/archives/2007/07/dan_and_keith_o.php

>No, I'm afraid THAT sort of reasoning was all Brandon's and his wailing "I have childhood issues with rich privileged girls...but Cecelia's neurotic and Tur only likes Olbermann for his money" STC friend.
Posted by: Cecelia at July 21, 2007 12:46 PM

Sorry about the C for the O. Posted by: Cecelia at July 23, 2007 10:27 PM

Thanks for another "fib/lie" disguised as an apology. Perhaps you unintentionally dragged me into your crap. (then honest mistake).

>>>>I've spent several years here detailing how I don't' like Olbermann,

Holy grey goose! Let's read that again.

>>>>I've spent several years here detailing how I don't' like Olbermann,

Aunt Jemimah's Bombay Safire!! There is no way someone should be able to say that without having some kind of epiphany. You clowns are busy attacking the one and only ANTI that isn't stark raving wingnut looneytoons, and she's busy trying to offer her kook bona fides so she can get back in your crazy-club.

>>>>I've spent several years here detailing how I don't' like Olbermann,

Sorry to repeat it, but honestly, if you people think it's possible for an honest concerned citizen to read past a sentence like that without making comment, you're crazier than you seem. Let's check the replay once again:

>>>>I've spent several years here detailing how I don't' like Olbermann,

Yup, that's what she said, and she meant it. Literally. How awful is that? But it's really way worse, if you contemplate the fact that Cecelia is actually the Stolichnaya at this site to your Belvadere and Captain Morgan. Her years and years of constantly detailing how she hates Olbermann is contrasted to the rest of the wingnut flotsam and jetsam by it's reasonableness and occassional glimmer of hope. The rest of this site's teaming masses don't even have a faint glimmer of a desire to be free. They embrace nothingness like Rosie Odonell embraces corndogs and fatstink.

I'm a sucker for charity cases, but it's increasingly clear that no amount of cajoling is going to trigger the kind of soul saving soul searching that I'm aiming at. I would have told you that if I could have gotten Cecelia to come to the realization that she's

>>>>...spent several years here detailing how I don't' like Olbermann,

my job would be done and she'd adopt an child who lost it's parents, and do something with thoses years and years, beyond detailing her dislike of a particular arrangement of phosphors. But no. Children go to bed hungry, scared and alone, and Cecelia marches on,

"detailing how I don't' like Olbermann,"

...oh, and golddigging her husband, according to you wasted lumps of flesh. That's rich. What a load of loserly scum you people are. The rest of you probably couldn't do anyting good with your lives anyway, and being here at least keeps you from drowning puppies in bleach or something. But if she can say that and still hang onto the obsession, she can't be helped either and may as well be some idiot like Brandon or that maddog guy whatsisname Kingpin or something. She may as well start a site to defend FoxNews. What kind of milquetoast freakyboy does that?

So anyway, either she's already cured and that was her last post, or a real lost cause. Hopefully, I played some small part in the crisis of conscience that caused Cecelia to acknowledge the truth. But where will she go from here? Sadly, no one will ever know.

>>>>I've spent several years here detailing how I don't' like Olbermann,

She's the best of you, people. And the truth is the truth, she's

>>>>spent several years here detailing how I don't' like Olbermann,

Repent!Repent. You don't enjoy being here, you mostly aren't good writers, your subject is moronic, no one else in the goddam world even knows who or what an Olbermann is, and your whole being is a lie. Repent! Reform! Do something.

Toodaloo. As always, I am Drunk, Waiting, Erie Bob Olberloon.

Posted by: The Angel Maroni/Erie Bob Olberloon at July 11, 2007 1:42 AM

-----------------------------------------------

Erie Bob,
Cecelia is a lost cause, I finally realize this after reading some of her horrid vitriol of last nights (7-24-07) thread, which I wish I read before responding to her yet again.

I realize that your comment was directed at Cecelia (and you were drunk at the time), and even though I disagree with you about Cecelia being the "best of you here"(Grammie or Sharon are far better, decent and much more civil)---sorry I digress---but I am here to take you up on your offer. I REPENT....I'll say it again, it feels kind of good:
I REPENT: I don't want wake up one day and realize:
>I've spent several years here detailing how I don't' like Olbermann...

Hopefully you can pop in now and again to help reform others. (Good luck to you, Clucker, SLOB, Mike, WDYCWMNI, AAP, KAF, LMAO, Dan and many others fighting the good fight).

Thanks again Erie Bob for your insight. What's that old saying...Drunks never lie.

Hopefully you can pop in now and again to help reform others. (Good luck to you, Clucker, SLOB, Mike, WDYCWMNI, AAP, KAF, LMAO, Dan and many others fighting the good fight).

Thanks again Erie Bob for your insight. What's that old saying...Drunks never lie.

Posted by: STC at July 25, 2007 12:51 PM

Isn't this the third time this year that you've posted something to the effect that you have seen the light, were turning over a new leaf, were getting out of Dodge, moving on to better things, etc.?

We'll try to carry on without you. I suspect though, you'll continue to be around in one form or another.

Thanks again Erie Bob for your insight. What's that old saying...Drunks never lie.

Posted by: STC at July 25, 2007 12:51 PM

You new BFF Erie Bob was also insightful enough to say that if you didn't have OW you'd be drowning puppies in bleach... so do try to stay busy after leaving here, won't you please...

:D