So where’s the Jeff Gannon/James Guckert story at these days? [Note: The pseudonym Gannon will be used for the rest of the article]
Even as the blogs investigating this story have continued to play the gay sex/escort/prostitution angle for all it’s worth, focusing on the the ancillary allegations shows how marginal the story actually is.
Allegation – Jeff Gannon received a special permanent White House press “hard pass.”
Fact – The bloggers who made that allegation have now retracted it. It appears that Gannon received day passes under his real name just as he has previously indicated.
Allegation – The White House should not have credentialed Gannon because he was a conservative shill not a real reporter.
Fact – Ari Fleischer, in an interview with Editor &Publisher, notes, “It is a slippery slope for any press secretary in any administration to pick and choose who gets a credential based on ideology, so long as they are a legitimate reporter.” A debate on the merits of Gannon’s journalistic credentials is beyond the scope of this post, but he certainly wrote and published stories at an online news organization, regardless of ones opinion of the relative quality of Talon News.
Allegation – The White House should have know about Gannon’s sexual history and barred him from the White House.
Fact – Ari Fleischer, in an interview with Editor &Publisher, notes, “The last thing our nation needs is for anyone in the White House to concern themselves with the private lives of reporters. What right does the White House have to decide who gets to be a reporter based on private lives?”
Allegation – Gannon had full access to the White House and was running around unchecked in the White House for years.
Fact – To make it scarier the blogs perpetrating this angle of the story need to mention the sexual angle, but on its face it’s a ridiculous claim. Regardless of how you try to spin it a day pass to the White House press briefings is not an all access pass. I don’t know it for sure, but they probably hustle you right out of there when the events of the day are over.
Allegation – Gannon got a press pass while others were rejected.
Fact – Gannon was denied the only passes that matter in this story – the Capital Hill pass issued by the Standing Committee of Correspondents and the White House hard pass, which allows ongoing access to the White House press briefings. The White House hard pass requires a pass first be issued by the Standing Committee of Correspondents. Gannon was left to apply for the only other type of pass available, the daily pass. The daily pass, like its name implies, is good for one day only and by all indications does not have the same restrictions as to who may receive a pass as the the others do. While goofy Maureen Dowd complains that her pass was rejected, she most certainly was writing about a hard pass or a Standing Committee pass, which Gannon too was denied. If Dowd really wanted to cover the White House she could have stood in line for day passes too…
Allegation – Gannon attended a press briefing before Talon News was founded.
Fact – This appears to be true. Gannon appears to have attended a press briefing under the auspices of GOPUSA. From Ari Fleisher’s interview it’s not hard to imagine that Talon News was created to insulate the press coverage that GOPUSA decided it wanted to do from it’s organization. This likely occurred in response to questions from Fleisher about whether GOPUSA was a party organization.
Allegation – Gannon received the Valeria Plame memo and was subpoenaed by the special prosecutor in the Plame case.
Fact – Highly unlikely. Tom McGuire and The Washington Post’s Dan Froomkin debunk that myth pretty convincingly.
Allegation – Gannon asked softball questions.
Fact – True. This is the essence of the Gannongate story. Gannon was “outed” (not sexually) by mainstream media types with the help of David Brock’s Media Matters For America. The reporters got their wish when Gannon quit. The bloggers continuing to pursue the story only “succeed” is they can claim a scalp besides Gannon’s, which is why they continue to search for new angles to implicated ANYONE else…
WHY DON’T ONE OF YOU LEFT WING PUSSY’S TAKE YOUR MICH. TO JOHN THE LIAR KERRY , STICK IN HIS FACE OR ASS I REALLY DON’T CARE AND ASK HIM TO SIGN , NO DEMAND HIM TO SIGN FORM 180. DO SOMETHING JORNALISTIC AND NAIL THE COFIN ON THIS SOB. OR ARE U A BUNCH OF SPEUW FEEDERS.
“But for the Bush White House to give preferential treatment to an obscure partisan “journalist” from an equally obscure partisan “news organization” … is a perversion of the very idea of a free and independent press
Priceless. Now that Gannon’s gone, it’s back to just leftwing shills at press conferences. How “free and indpendant”.
Anyway, fuck it. I now openly call for Gannon to be replaced with ANOTHER openly partisan rightwing shill as quickly as possible (and preferably NOT someone from a mainstream media outlet ) to balance out the army of leftwing shills in the press corp.
Hmmm.
I think this entire attack on Gannon has nothing to do
with Gannon at all. It is a concerted attack on the
minimal requirements to enter the WH press room.
Currently the requirements for a daily pass are fairly
low. A hard pass, a permanent pass, requires
certification from a board of established professional
journalists. This same requirement applies if you want
to get certified for Congressional press rooms.
But the “hole” in the system is the daily pass. And
this “hole” is what the liberals want closed. Isn’t it
interesting that the primary issue is Gannon’s access?
Isn’t it interesting that the entire focus of
professional journalists is in pressuring the WH to
increase the requirements for the daily pass by
assigning approval to the certification board?
Now tell me. How are **bloggers** going to get access
to the WH press room? By getting approval from
professional journalists? Yeah, right. Sure. Most
likely it would require applying for a daily pass,
like Gannon, but if this avenue is closed off, then
how?
Right now one of the most basic problems with blogging
is the lack of direct representation in press
briefings. Another problem is in direct research, but
that is being slowly addressed. The three pillars of
modern journalism are research, reporting and
interviewing. Blogs are becoming more versed in
research. Blogs are experienced in reporting. But
blogs aren’t all that experienced in interviewing, an
example of which is the recent EasonGate nonsense
where so few blogs thought to interview the
participants at Davos. Interviewing is the Achilles
Heel of blogging because it’s something that few
bloggers are experienced with. It’s also a vulnerable
point because most people would talk to Newsweek or
the NYT, but who on earth would talk to someone
representing http://www.schmoe.com?
In order for that to happen, blogs need more widely
recognized legitimacy. But this can be killed right
off by denying blogs any access to the primary sources
of stories. As long as blogs must gain their research
through the filter of the MSM, blogs will always be
dependent upon the MSM. Instead of augmenting or
replacing the MSM, blogs will form a parastitical
relationship. And to the detriment of blogs and their
potential.
Gannon-“Gate” has nothing to do with Gannon/Guckert at
all. It has everything to do with laying down the
foundation for restricting access to blogs and
bloggers.
I’m all for giving bloggers access to White House press briefings. But “Gannon” wasn’t just a blogger — he was, in the words of Sean Hannity, “a terrific Washington bureau chief and White House correspondent for Talon News.”
In other words, he was regarded, by at least some of the MSM, as a journalist.
Oh, wait… y’all hate Hannity now. Well, never mind.
“In other words, he was regarded, by at least some of the MSM, as a journalist.”
The handful of people who knew he existed probably thought he was a shill. He never pretended he wasn’t.
It has everything to do with laying down the
foundation for restricting access to blogs and
bloggers.
I have never heard of bloggers demanding access to WH briefings. Once they do that, they are no longer bloggers per se, but are journalists. Journalists who blog, like Josh marshall and Billmon and Rebecca McKinnon. Most bloggers have FT jobs and don’t have the luxury to hang out daily at the WH. And your point really doesn’t make sense. Why would “the left” be so obsessed with keeping bloggers out of the WH? After all, the most-read blogger, Kos, is a leftie! Then there’s Atrios and Bull Moose and so many others. I have bad news for you: wingnuts don’t own the blogosphere.
So if he was a Republican shill, and everybody knew he was a Republican shill, what was the point in inviting him to press briefings if his sole purpose in being there was to regurgitate the official Party line? Unless, of course, you think that the role of the press (and by “free and independent” I mean “free and independent of government or Party control”) is simply to glorify Our Leader.
Of course, that goes both ways. No President is entitled to a press corps that consists entirely of hand-picked ass-kissers. If Kerry were President, I certainly wouldn’t expect, or want, his press pool to consist entirely of Democratic Party operatives. Naturally, the right-wing Ă©lite continues to insist, in spite of all available evidence, that the press corps is 99.44% pure leftist. I guess that’s why they left Clinton alone during his 8 years in the White House, and never ever asked him any embarrassing questions, and refused to report on any of those icky penis-related issues.
Call me a naive idealist, but I continue to believe in Finley Peter Dunne’s maxim that the role of the press is “to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.” Otherwise what’s the point in having press briefings at all? Fax machines work just as well. And no fax machine has ever marketed itself online as a gay Marine prostitute.
Vaara, whoever you are, you’re a genius! Thanks for the best post in this fast-deteriorating thread.
🙂
Yes, I to am concerned that Gannon was allowed into the White House press. I mean he tootallly ruined the theme of the day. Don’t you remember, he was the only one that did not ask Bush about an apology. I mean, they had such a good ‘herd mentality’ thing working for them and he had to go a screw it up. If if he wasn’t going to work as a team to knock Bush down a peg or two, what good is he doing in there.
To be fair I think a Wash. Times reporter slipped another one in, but it got in the way of my sarcasm.
Don’t you remember, he was the only one that did not ask Bush about an apology. I mean, they had such a good ‘herd mentality’ thing working for them and he had to go a screw it up. If if he wasn’t going to work as a team to knock Bush down a peg or two, what good is he doing in there.
In case you hadn’t heard, the role of a free press is to challenge and question the president, not to give him props and kiss his ass. The press corps was doing their job, and being far easier on Bush than they ever were on his predecessor.
I see a comment like yours and I realize this isn’t about Gannon, but about the wingnuts’ bizarre obsession with the so-called “MSM,” a bogeyman that exists only in the minds of the likes of Roger Simon and Michelle Malkin. The real MSM consists of the NY Times, the Wall Street Journal, CBS, Fox News and all types of mainstream conservative and liberal media. This falsehood you express that Gannon was the only reporter not to ask Bush to apologise — it’s symptomatic of an argument based on a lie, on an illusion. But without it, you’re helpless, because the myth of the MSM is the only thing that allows you to ignore the failures of the Bush administration across the board, the never-ending string of lies we’re fed by his minions, and the wretched state of our country since the day shrub took office. Blame it all on the MSM. It’s easy. It’s painless. And it allows to you to wallow in self-delusion. It’s your privilege, but just be aware of the self-deceptive and dishonest game you’re playing.
clive says Got any quotes of Scott denying he visited those bars??
You pathetic pettifogger. Raw Story makes it clear, using the “anonymous” source dodge, they believe Gannon f**ked his way into a day pass and then they toss out McClellan and Mehlman’s name. And McClellan doesn’t deny going into a gay bar is proof?
Hey Clive, I just got a couple of emails from anonymous sources that you like to hang in teen chat rooms and are a well-known ephebophile.
feh.
You, like the rest of the Left cult are morally bankrupt, especially on this issue.
“I guess that’s why they left Clinton alone during his 8 years in the White House, and never ever asked him any embarrassing questions, and refused to report on any of those icky penis-related issues.”
Idiotic. Clinton got a BJ, which is why he was asked about it. Then he lied under oath. Both these issues are direct results of Clinton’s own actions. Who better to ask about Clinton’s BJ and perjury, than Clinton? Anyway, here’s some more of those “tough” questions Clinton was asked.
“The press corps was doing their job, and being far easier on Bush than they ever were on his predecessor.”
Clearly, we live in two different worlds.
the role of the free press
but Richard, you’ve spent so much time here demanding that the press isn’t free but has to conform to some kind of Richard’s Rules of Journalistic Definition.
Hey vaara
Explain Russell Mukhiber and how he has, for years, gotten in on day passes.
more dissembling from the kool-aid crowd… unbelievable
Darleen, where did I ever say I don’t believe in a free press? Quote, please.
Yes Joe, we live in different worlds. You said everyone who wants a press pass should have one. I say we need some rules — not prohibitions or diminution of freedoms, but we can’t have anarchy. You know, we have to stop at red lights, and we can’t let everyone into every press briefing. Not everyone is a reporter simply because he or she says so. And yes, the media was way more hard on Clinton than on shrub. Again, if Gannon had been a Clinton shill, running a male prstitution service and being given very preferential treatment, all hell would have broken loose. And you know it. Gotta go. Keep’em coming.
Joe
Of course the “press” grilled Clinton. Ranked above their own “advocacy journalism” is anything for “the” story that’ll get ’em ratings. Jordan turned CNN into Saddams pool boy for access (makes you wonder how many of those mass graves CNN was complicit in allowing). FoxNews is not exception to the “big” story siren call even dropping standards of common decency to pursue it. What was Gannon’s crime? Lobbing a softball question which the Left cult in its BDS mode cannot let go by. Gannon’s gone but the Left is not satisfied. They are dragging his body through the streets, and attempting to hang him naked from a bridge, doused with kerosene and aflame while dancing around and ulullating.
Richard
You have stated Gannon isn’t a journalist and should not have had access to the day pass. As I’ve repeated .. and provided links for .. the day pass isn’t about defining by some quasi-legal fiat who is or is not a journalist. Once you start down that road you are making a mockery of the First Amendment.
I realize Leftists are in full “protect our territory” mode … they’re slipping in the MSM and university game perserves they’ve so enjoyed near exclusive hunting rights. But a FREE press means that anyone has the opportunity to BE a part of it. Ed makes clear the irony of the calls to change the criteria for day passes.
YOU don’t want a ‘free’ press, but a press that holds membership in a restricted club.
The Left has always had love affairs with totalitarian systems/ideologies — Stalin, Castro, Mao, Khmer Rouge, jihadists — so this call to restrict the free access to information shouldn’t surprise me.
Hmmm.
“I have never heard of bloggers demanding access to WH briefings. Once they do that, they are no longer bloggers per se, but are journalists.”
Calling bloggers “journalists” doesn’t necessarily make them so. Particularly to journalists who had to graduate from journalism school and work their way up the food chain. Sure I can really imagine these people opening up the doors to bloggers.
You might call bloggers “journalists” but I certainly don’t expect established members of the MSM to do so. Otherwise provide actual proof that bloggers are being accepted by MSM journalists as “real” journalists.
“Journalists who blog, like Josh marshall and Billmon and Rebecca McKinnon. Most bloggers have FT jobs and don’t have the luxury to hang out daily at the WH.”
Because blogging isn’t a lucrative business? Please explain Andrew Sullivan.
“And your point really doesn’t make sense. Why would “the left” be so obsessed with keeping bloggers out of the WH? After all, the most-read blogger, Kos, is a leftie!”
Because the vast majority of WH press room journalists are liberals as well as being journalists. One of the defining characteristics of the MSM is access to primary newsmakers. Take away that exclusive access and they are just another voice. Additionally the inclusion of right-wing bloggers into various press rooms will challenge the existing order. There’s only so much room in any briefing and only so many questions allowed, due to time constraints.
Add in bloggers and you’ve got more competitive pressure on those people who are already in.
“Then there’s Atrios and Bull Moose and so many others. I have bad news for you: wingnuts don’t own the blogosphere.”
You’re right. The Loony Liberal Left doesn’t own the blogosphere. And that is what’s driving this whole Gannon episode. The liberals don’t need access to the various press rooms in Washington because they’ve got the MSM to act on their behalf. But the right-wing of the blogosphere definitely desires more participation.
The simple fact is that blogging is going to be more lucrative as time passes. Newspaper circulation is dropping very fast and the readership is now moving to the internet. Likewise with tv news. Twenty years ago you sat down and watched the 6 o’clock news because that’s all you had. You had to wait for it. But now who bothers watching anymore? Why wait when you have immediate access through the internet.
Competition is everything and this nonsense over Gannon is nothing more than a ploy to restrict access to critical press rooms and accredation. Let’s face a few facts here. Google is a multi-billion dollar company almost entirely on the basis of advertising. As more people turn to the internet for news and information, the economics of blogging will evolve. They are already evolving as blogging now leads to other sources of income through writing and tv appearances.
At some point in the very near future bloggers will become professional and will seek to extend their reach into the most jealously guarded areas of the press. The basis of the press are: reporting, research and interviewing. Blogs are already superior in many ways in reporting and in research. But interviewing is still at the learning stage.
This is the weak point and the entire thrust behind the Gannon nonsense.
Richard’s Rules of Journalistic Definition.
Good one, Darleen!
What I’m inferring from many of the comments here is that there ought to be some sort of ideological litmus test for White House reporters.
Which, if ever implemented, would be the death of democracy. Simple as that.
Hmmm.
Let me extend this a bit more:
Basic news per se has lost most of it’s value. Those media organs that engage in delivering basic news are losing marketshare. This is because the number of sources for basic news has expanded. I.e. if a particular piece of news is worth $100, to advertisers for viewership, then this amount divided amongst 10 media sources would result in an average of $10 per source. Now add in the internet and blogs. This same $100 of news is now divided amongst 10,000+ sources so the resulting average is very very small. This is in part why news sources are losing viewship/readership and money.
So the value to be gained in not in basic news, but in analysis. A “value add” that can be branded. This explains FoxNews’s success. FoxNews is less into delivering basic news, something that can be gained from other sources at little cost, but about adding value through analysis.
And there are very few things more effective at analysis, and thus adding value, than blogs.
I watch, occasionally, Fox News Watch. These are professional journalists who sit in a circle and debate some of the more interesting issues that happened during the past week. The amount of mis-information and outright ignorance is just amazing. I’d suggest that the average blog-reader has a better understanding, and a deeper understanding, than most of these professional journalists.
And that is entirely the point.
Hmmm.
“What I’m inferring from many of the comments here is that there ought to be some sort of ideological litmus test for White House reporters.”
There already is one as evidenced by the excessive outrage at Gannon/Guckert.
“Which, if ever implemented, would be the death of democracy. Simple as that.”
c.f. America: 1965 – 2004
Gosh, Ed, I must have missed all those Executive Orders that laid down the rules for the White House press corps — i.e. that it must contain x liberals and y conservatives at all times.
Your earlier comment — which may have been tinged with sarcasm, though it’s not easy to tell these days — regarding the replacement of “Gannon” with a different Republican shill suggests that you think the White House should play a role in deciding who covers it.
So let’s say your little plan comes to fruition, and that the White House beat, circa 2007, is covered strictly by representatives of the above-mentioned MSM entities (WSJ, NYP, FNN, WT), along with a carefully chosen claque of Party apparatchik bloggers (Reynolds, Johnson, someone or other from Powerline, etc.).
Do you think the American people would be better served by such an arrangement, i.e. one where the ONLY news emanating from the White House is precisely what the White House wants the people to hear?
As George Orwell’s ghost would tell you, total control of information is the first step toward total control of the people. We’re already under one-Party rule; what possible justification could there be for stifling anti-Party reporting, unless your aim is to consolidate Party control over everything and everybody?
I’m sure your answer will be one that sounded better in the original Russian, comrade.
Richard, maybe you didn’t watch that feeding frenzy. I had this displeasure of seing it, it was no illlusion. You see, we don’t put a president in office to apologize, we put him there to lead. If we feel he needs to apologize for something, we vote him out. Yet the press felt that was the only question of the day, which it most certianly was not. Is it not the same press who told us every thing in Iraq was a quagmire, though reading the Iraqi blogs told us something different. Then much to our medias surprise, the Iraqis came out by the millions to vote, they wanted freedom, imagine that. I personally feel that this gannon situation does hurt my side, but in no way does it come close to Rather and his forged documents. Is this the ” bogeyman that exists only in the minds of the likes of Roger Simon and Michelle Malkin” that you drone on about. Hey, if cBS can get in the WH press room, I don’t have a problem with Talon news. Let me ask you a question. If Bush and Kerry were switched, and the Swift Boat boys accussed Bush of what they accused Kerry, would you deny that the press would use every asset available to bury Bush.
BTW, our founding fathers understood the ‘herd mentality”, hence the electorial college.
As George Orwell’s ghost would tell you, total control of information is the first step toward total control of the people. We’re already under one-Party rule.
vaara, don’t blogs disseminate the control of information. And if the Dems would quit self-destructing, everyone would be happy, a two party system.
“the Iraqis came out by the millions to vote, they wanted freedom, imagine that“
Yes, they did. And do you know who won that election?
Well, if you’d been relying entirely on LGF, you’d have no idea. Charles Johnson has scrupulously avoided mentioning the rather inconvenient fact that Islamist Shia parties won a majority of seats in Parliament. 51%, in fact, which as we all know, is a mandate.
This places that recent Cox & Forkum cartoon (you know the one I mean) about brave bloggers who defend Truth and Objectivity against the eeeevul MSM in a rather different light.
vaara
do you ever really think about what you write before you write it? A parlimentary governmental body does not operate like our Congress does, so 51% is not a mandate. And this is not the final body either but is the group that will work on creating a CONSTITUTION for their republic.
The Sunni’s have already said they made a tactical error in boycotting the election and despite your mongering, many Shia leaders are signalling a willingness to reach out to the Sunnis.
And let’s not forget the other big winner in the election, the Kurds. You remember them don’t you? The ones that have built a rather successful society while Americans and Brits maintained a no-fly zone so Saddam couldn’t repeat his predations on them?
Now, are you actually FOR a free press in which citizen journalists have a chance to access the WH or Congress? Or are you, like richard, asking for an exclusive club where only the hoi paloi of self-appointed Grand Masters get to do the thumbs up/down on who is allowed the title “journalist”? Remember, it was a litmus test of not being part of the Leftist cult that got Gannon gutted as an apostate.
Yes I did, in fact according to Ali Fadil (an Iraqi) he says, this 51% includes Christian, Sunni and Yezidies. Thats not quite shia. In additionthis 51% include Coalition List which is not entirly religious. So spread your fear if you must, I have faith in human nature to yearn for freedom. You know human nature, don’t you, the one think Marx, Lenin, the communist, the socialist, ect. forgot when they were putting their little theories together.
Darleen said:
You pathetic pettifogger. Raw Story makes it clear, using the “anonymous” source dodge, they believe Gannon f**ked his way into a day pass and then they toss out McClellan and Mehlman’s name. And McClellan doesn’t deny going into a gay bar is proof?
McClellan not denying it, is not proof and I never said it was. But, it would certainly help your argument right now!
It’s easy to resist resorting to name-calling and taunts, especially when your opponent is demonstrating it out frustration!
Again, what you just wrote is your interpretation of the Raw Story article, not what it said implicitly. Therefore, you’ve failed to prove your point.
And last, if there was any grounds for Libel, we would not be having this debate.
Talon was a created, madeup entity, a pretend media group for GOP USA, a political action group
And did this pretend media group ever do anything as overtly political as to go on prime time with a bogus news story based on incompetent amateur forgeries in coordination with a Presidential campaign?
Darleen–Newcomer was the expert. Getting his story out there falls into the broadcasting realm. And again, it’s certainly not insignificant. It’s just not investigation.
“You’re reaching. Maybe they simply erased it until the questions about plagiarism etc. can be cleared up. Is Jason Blair’s articles still on the NYT web site? If it is, I’m sure it has a warning sticker on it.”
Wrong.
And no, that’s not why they purged the articles. They did it without comment. They never published a correction. They purged the documents to thwart the left’s investigation. Of course, they had no idea what they’re doing, and didn’t realize that any number of online copies were still available.
“You can’t alter WHOIS history.”
Duh. You can alter the owner, though. The history shows the prior owner and guess who it is?
“Nonsense. Bloggers were very active in doing typographical analysis. “
That’s really overstating it. But if you like, go ahead and call it “analysis”. As you yourself point out, it wasn’t valid until the experts said so–and all anyone would have had to do is call in an expert to begin with. The problem was that the media wasn’t calling in experts until the conservative bloggers demanded it and made such a noise that it couldn’t be ignored–and that, again, is where the right’s influence is most significant. I’m just saying they need to work on the other side of things.
For starters, people might want to try accepting one reality–like it or not, the Gannon story is escalating. Call it the liberal media bias, if you like. But something new comes out about the story every day. It may ultimately go nowhere, but anyone who thinks there aren’t journalists actively trying to link this to the Republican party (my guess is the Senate race in South Dakota) are those who spend too much time in the echo chamber.
I’m off–how do you people talk in these damn comment fields? They’re awful. If you’re interested, come on over to The Perfect World. It’s much easier to talk there.
“KERFLUFFLE
*bzzt bzzt*
MORAL VALUES
*bzzt*
FLOGG-AAARGH
“Oh no! The BushBot has broken down!”
Prostitutes in the press room. Way to go, Values Voters.”
Whew, thank God we have the left to show how to NOT demonize homosexuals.
-=Mike
Mike I’m a homosexual. No one, absolutely no one is demonizing homosexuality. Criticizing a woman for running a prostitution ring isn’t demonizing heterosexuals, is it? Who cares that Gannon was gay, it’s irrelevant. But if he’s running a prostitution business, hetero- or homosexual, whilst operating as a sleazeball reporter given access to the highest echelons of the US government under a fake name — well, that’s news. Damned big news.
In Guckert’s CBC interview, he was asked what he was up to before coming to Talon News. He said he was “pursuing entrepreneurial activities in the private sector.”
http://www.male4malescorts.com/reviews/bulldogdc.html
This is not a “whore with a heart of gold”. This is an evil man without a conscience, though he professes to be a good Christian. He embodies Evil, and just like W, is totally unaware that he is Evil, since his motives of supporting Right wing Republicans are so pure.
When he got paid, Gucky probably claimed he was a church. That’s what a lot of trashy super right wing guys do. And this man is trash. Actually, this man’s behavior really makes all of us appreciate the fine moral standards maintained by those who are brought up in trailer parks in the rural South and housing projects in the urban North.
When folks paid him, he wouldn’t need to report those “charitable contributions” he collected. And the fellows who gave him contributions really didn’t want to be bothered to track those receipts for “charity”.
I’m sure Gucky’s a burglar, too. I’ve never heard of a prostitute who won’t commit burglary. Come on now, after he’s done the deed with a John, don’t you think he might decide to take along any loose knick-knacks lying around as a “souvenir”?. When he took a shower afterwards, in the John’s home, do you think he kept his hands off the medicine cabinet? If he saw a prescription bottle of oxycontin worth $500, would he say to himself, “Oh, no, my client will complain to the police,” or did he say, “Eureka. I’m getting paid double if I just pocket that prescription bottle”?
Considering the bad habits whores fall into of lifting stuff away when they’ve been visiting “customers” at home, I think there’s a strong possibility that Gucky has also lifted some stuff from the White House. If the DC police were to search his apartment, they’d undoubtedly find an ashtray or sterling silver teaspoon or a fancy Presidential pen that he did not receive as a gift, but that he stole from the White House or from one of his johns.
In addition, Gucky has not been adverse to committing white-collar crimes. Bedrock corporation — the last line of the Flintstones’ theme song is “Bedrock, bedrock and we’ll have a gay all time” — that he set up to clear checks has acted as a factor, financer, and a collection agent. Asserting false claims against families of the recently deceased and offering to improve the credit of economically marginal people, for a fee, are some of the “work” Bedrock performs.
Though it’s not as entertaining as gay sex, asserting false claims against bereaved widows evinces how Gucky and his supporters cross the line from sociopath to psychopath, from being an antisocial, non-violent criminal, to being criminal, even violently so, without conscience.
We are not just fighting hypocrisy here, but EVIL: evil that is inspired by the moral direction of George W. Bush and Karl Rove. The Right claims the moral high-ground while relying upon EVIL criminals to accomplish its objectives. It’s not just a gay prostitute who was close to the president, but a grifter, part of a whole group of far-right grifters, stealing directly from the poor and destitute to enrich themselves.
Getting cash from a general because you gave him a good ride in bed is one thing, getting cash from a young soldier’s family, after he has died young, by asserting totally false claims against his widow is another.
Guckert reassures himself that no matter how criminal or foul his behavior, he is a good Christian and God will love and forgive him, even as God has forgiven our president. Gucky undoubtedly sees as his role models for good Christian behavior George W. Bush and Karl Rove.
That means when he kicks at bums sleeping in the street, for the sheer pleasure of watching them wiggle in pain, he only kicks hard enough to cause permanent injuries, not death. In doing so, he imitates President Bush who supports the right of infants to be born, but not the right to stay alive: thousands of children are to go to bed hungry, without health care, because of reduced funding for food stamps and medicaid.
Waaaahhhhh, how dare the librul elitists attack one of our boys? Oh, what, just because we ran Rather through the wringer for a mistake someone on his staff made, they think they can challenge OUR credentials?
What, just because we bitch and moan 24/7 about “moral values” and the “homer-sexual agenda” that they can call us our for engaging in male prostitution?
What do they think this is? The Clinton Administration? Nope, sorry everyone. Facts and investigative journalism is soooooo 1990s … these days, if you ain’t get paid to preach the good word of Bush, you just ain’t a journalist!
Can ya just feel the love, tolerance and open mindedness from our loyal brothers and sisters on the left?
:::sigh:::
Well, one good thing about this — yet another clear example how the Left is not a political movement but a religious cult.