Kevin reported it a few days ago but now Kurtz has the story. The sum total of the Gannon nonsense is that there were naked pictures of him on the internet from years ago.
Jeff Gannon Admits Past ‘Mistakes,’ Berates Critics
Jeff Gannon, the former White House reporter whose naked pictures have appeared on a number of gay escort sites, says that he has “regrets” about his past but that White House officials knew nothing about his salacious activities.
“I’ve made mistakes in my past,” he said yesterday. “Does my past mean I can’t have a future? Does it disqualify me from being a journalist?”
Gannon chastised his critics, breaking a silence that began last week when liberal bloggers disclosed his real name, James Dale Guckert, and a Web page, which he paid for, featuring X-rated photos of himself. “Why would they be looking into a person’s sexual history? Is that what we’re going to do to reporters now? Is there some kind of litmus test for reporters? Is it right to hold someone’s sexuality against them?”
It is only acceptable to use ones sexuality against someone if you are a liberal. A liberal can bash someone for being gay but if a conservative has the temerity to say that a family with a mother and a father is the best environment in which to raise a child, they are evil, bigoted hate-mongers. Doesn’t everyone know the rules by now?
Dismissing speculation that he had a permanent White House press pass, which requires a full-blown FBI background check that usually takes months, Gannon said he could not get one because he was required to first get a pass from the Senate press gallery, which did not consider him to be working for a legitimate news organization. Instead, he said he was admitted on a day-to-day basis after supplying his real name, date of birth and Social Security number. He said he did not use a pseudonym to hide his past but because his real last name is hard to spell and pronounce.
Oh my gosh, he used a pseudonym! The horrors. Authors and reporters never do that!
This whole episode was the liberal blogosphere’s version of a virtual shoe throwing. The lefty bloogers did little more than throw their shoes at Gannon while shrieking “You Lied! You Lied!”
Another proud moment in liberalism.
You can call bs all you want, but I find it amusing as hell that you ask where the 30’s and 40’s reporters came from, given that journalism school has been around for much longer than that. Copy boys did indeed *work their way up* but that means time in and work. Gannon had neither time in, nor work, nor credentials.
While it may not interest you because you exhibit disdain for higher education, particularly in journalism, it’s how the system generally works. Call a weekly. Ask them if they hire high-level reporters with resumes that contain no formal journalism education. They don’t. I know. I’ve worked for dailies and weeklies at all levels — you have to have some credentials in order to be hired.
Now, Talon News is not really a news source (which is why Gannon couldn’t get a hard pass, because the “online paper” did not pass WH qualifications for being legitimate press). So that’s how he got hired in. The question is, how did he get vetted and passed into the WH press corps, taking the place of real, credentialed reporters?
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that you don’t go from a two-day $50 journalism seminar and six days later end up a member of the White House press corps without somebody in power putting you there. So, blackmail perhaps or a very close personal relationship with someone in power turned a nobody into Charles Foster Kane in six days.
To quote Leonard Pitts’ column on Gannongate: But, when media watchdogs are intimidated into becoming lap dogs, as some wise wit once said, that’s not reporting: That’s just taking dictation.
“And has the media gotten better or worse with the flooding post-60’s of MSM with “journalism” degrees from “Journalism” schools that teach “advocacy journalism” rather than the old school 5WH (who, what, where, when, why and how)?”
If this is a concern of yours, you are truly on the wrong side of the issue. It’s obvious from reading Gannon’s stories and hearing his questions, he’s the biggest “advocate” hack writer ever to come along. As a professional reporter, I agree with your above statement. Which is precisely why I find Gannongate so disturbing. Since you are sticking up for him despite the fact he’s an uncredentialed, uneducated, unseasoned partisan plant, then I have to wonder if “advocacy journalism” only concerns you when it comes with a left-wing slant. That’s what your statements indicate.
“As a professional reporter, I agree with your above statement.”
Ahha, now we know where Anne’s bias comes from.
Sorry, Anne, but while many journalists may have degrees, a degree is not required to be a journalist. And frankly I would prefer that the government not get into the business of defining who is or isn’t a journalist.
You may argue that Gannon was not a good journalist, or that his news agency isn’t all that legitimate a source, but I would much rather give the benefit of the doubt, when it comes to who gets to be a journalist on the side of being broad, than restricting it to only those people who got a four year degree from some university.
From Anne: I have to wonder if “advocacy journalism” only concerns you when it comes with a left-wing slant.
Just out of curiosity, does this reporter’s presence in the White House briefing room also bother you?
From Anne: The question is, how did he get vetted and passed into the WH press corps, taking the place of real, credentialed reporters? It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that you don’t go from a two-day $50 journalism seminar and six days later end up a member of the White House press corps without somebody in power putting you there.
The answer to this question is that he passed the security requirements that are in place for recieving a simple day pass. Apparently that doesn’t include much (if any more) than a simple criminal background check. I found the following purposes of daypasses interesting: Day passes, which are picked up every day at the press office, are intended to provide flexibility for out-of-town journalists who might need to cover the White House for a day or two, or to allow White House reporters to bring in visitors who want to see the press briefings. Apparently, you don’t have to be a reporter to receive a day pass. (The quote came from this Salon.con article.)
>
So, let’s say a business “journalist” only has a degree in, oh, BUSINESS.
Does that mean he or she is suddenly not a journalist? So, historians can’t be journalists? Political Science majors can’t be journalists?
Wow, pretty bad.
>
And if they do — who is the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to say “Yeah, the editor of your paper hired you — but we don’t think you’re a ‘real’ journalist”?
Do you really want the government to control that?
>
Experience is of infinite more importance than education.
>
Well, if you sit in line for a daily pass — not that much.
>
They can sit in line and wait for a daily pass.
And more importantly – WHY?>>
So, you’re outraged over a story that you don’t know much about?
Got it.
>
Never heard of Helent Thomas, eh? How about Walter Cronkite? They had few qualms about skewing the story to match their agendas.
>
Man, the left is now treating the 1st Amendment the way they treat the 2nd one.
But Bush is the one who wants to trample on the Constitution.
Odd.
-=Mike
Next, she will have the gall to argue that a poodle can’t be a journalist!
you exhibit disdain for higher education, particularly in journalism, it’s how the system generally works. Call a weekly. Ask them if they hire high-level reporters with resumes that contain no formal journalism education.
Somebody hired Peter Jennings. Do you have disdain for him.
Now, Talon News is not really a news source . . .
According to the USSC it is. Now, which opinion do you think demands more respect and carries legal authority? Theirs? Or, yours?
So, blackmail perhaps or a very close personal relationship with someone in power turned a nobody into Charles Foster Kane in six days.
Time to put on your tin-foil hat, Annie.
Anne
Who died and made you High Priestess and Keeper of the Orb of Real Journalism?
As I have stated before..you want to criticize Gannons writing style or his reporting, go right ahead (though it looks like he asked tough questions from a rightwing perspective, it’s only when he stepped over the line and did a Larry King question that suddenly He.Had.To.Be.Utterly.Destroyed). However, that’s not what has gone on has it?
And every Fred Phelps like action by the Left in this regard BELIES everything you claim. And whats even scarier is that you ACTUALLY are trying to get people to believe your crap about “We had to destroy Gannon in order to save Journalism”
Take your Stalinist Certificate of Government Approved Journalism and License to Practice It and SHOVE IT.
YOU DON’T GET TO LEGALLY DEFINE WHO IS A JOURNALIST.
meshugga schmuck
RE: madge’s poodle, J ’02’s post (February 20, 2005 10:32 PM)
Anne,
NEVER challenge the Canine Journalist.
Speaking of Larry King, the king of softball questions, does he get to have a WH press pass? After all, he doesn’t have a college degree, much less a journalism one, and he has an arrest in his past.
RE: Anne’s post (February 20, 2005 07:40 PM)
Anne,
Some of the lengthy following is for you and some of it is for the general knowledgebase of ideas. I don’t mean to pile on because you are getting thrashed pretty good, but I hope you’ll consider the following when you try to evaluate legitimacy of question and questioner.
If you want to skip to some analysis, scroll a bit past the questions. It would be better, however, if you read the questions first before critiquing my comments.
Merely a snapshot in time but here goes:
——————————-
President Holds Press Conference
January 26, 2005
The James S. Brady Briefing Room
The excerpted questions posed to the President.
Q [Terry] Mr. President, the insurgents in Iraq are threatening to kill anyone who comes out to vote on Sunday. Do you think they’ll succeed in killing or scaring away enough people so that the elections will be rendered seriously flawed or not credible?
Q [Steve] Can I ask a follow-up, sir? What would be a credible turnout number?
Q [?] Sir, your inaugural address has been interpreted as a new, aggressive posture against certain countries, in particular Iran. Should we view it that way?
Q [?] Do you see it as a policy shift?
Q [Terry] Mr. President, let me take you up on that, if I may. Last month in Jordan, a gentleman named Ali Hatar was arrested after delivering a lecture called, “Why We Boycott America.” He was charged under section 191 of their penal code for slander of government officials. He stood up for democracy, you might say. And I wonder if here and now, you will specifically condemn this abuse of human rights by a key American ally. And if you won’t, sir, then what, in a practical sense, do your fine words mean?
Q [Terry] Fair enough. If I could just follow up. Will you then — does your inaugural address mean that when it comes to people like Mr. Hatar, you won’t compromise because of a U.S. ally and you will stand —
Q [?] Mr. President, in the debate over Dr. Rice’s confirmation, Democrats came right out and accused you and the administration of lying in the run-up to the war in Iraq. Republicans, in some cases, conceded that mistakes have been made. Now that the election is over, are you willing to concede that any mistakes were made? And how do you feel about —
Q [?] No reaction to the lying? No reaction? (Laughter.)
Q [?] I’d like to ask you — sir, I’d like to ask you about the deficit. But before I do that, there is a developing story this morning — the helicopter crash in Iraq. Can you tell us what you know about that, what may have caused it, and your reaction to it?
Q [?] Don’t know whether it was weather-related, or not —
Q [?] You’re preparing to ask Congress for an additional $80 billion in war spending in Afghanistan and Iraq. The White House is also prepared to predict a budget deficit of $427 billion for this year. You talk about sacrifice in this country. Do you think that you’re really asking Americans to sacrifice financially — when you’re asking them to fund the war, yet, at the same time, perhaps pay an exorbitant amount to set up private accounts in Social Security, pay for a prescription drug benefit, as well as other spending plans?
Q [?] And tax cuts, to make those permanent? It’s a lot of money.
Q [John] Mr. President, I want to try another way to ask you about Iraq. When you made the decision to go to war in Iraq, you clearly had majority support in the country. A string of recent polls have shown a clear majority of the American people now believe it was a mistake to go to war in Iraq. You’ve asked for $80 billion in more money on top of the billions already spent. The army says that we’ll probably have 100,000 or more troops in Iraq for at least another year. What would you say to the American people, including a significant number who supported you at the beginning of the war, who now say this is not what we were led to believe would happen?
THE PRESIDENT: Carl, welcome to the beat. Is everybody thrilled Carl is here?
Q [Carl] Yes. (Laughter.)
Q [Carl] Thanks, very much.
THE PRESIDENT: Please express a little more enthusiasm for him. (Laughter.)
Q [Carl] A question on Social Security, if we may, sir. There has been, as you move forward to making your plan — your ultimate proposal, growing concern among Republicans on Capitol Hill. We had Chairman Thomas last week with some concern about the process, and Senator Olympia Snowe on the other side suggesting that she’s concerned about an absentee guaranteed benefit — excuse me. Are you prepared today to say that those who opt into a potential private account — personal account could, in fact, have a guaranteed benefit, as well? And what do you say to Republicans who are beginning to worry?
THE PRESIDENT: …And so, therefore, if you have a child — how old is your child, Carl?
Q [Carl] Fourteen years old.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, 14. Well, if she were —
Q [Carl] He, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: He, excuse me. (Laughter.) I should have done the background check. (Laughter.)…
Q [David] Mr. President, if I could return for a moment to your inaugural address. Dr. Rice referred in her testimony to six outposts of tyranny, countries where we clearly, I think, have a pretty good idea of your policies. What we’re confused by right now, I think — or, at least, I’m confused by, is how you deal with those countries like Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, with whom we have enormous broad interests. Should the leaders of those countries now be on notice that the primary measure of their relationship with the United States should be their progress toward liberty? Or can they rest assured that, in fact, you’ve got this broad agenda with them and you’re willing to measure liberty up against what China does for you on North Korea, what Russia does for you in other areas?
Q [Peter] Mr. President, Dr. Rice again — quoting your future Secretary of State, wrote in “Foreign Affairs Magazine” in 2000, outlining what a potential Bush administration foreign policy would be, talked about things like security interests, free trade pacts, confronting rogue nations, dealing with great powers like China and Russia — but promotion of democracy and liberty around the world was not a signature element of that prescription. I’m wondering what’s changed since 2000 that has made this such an important element of your foreign policy.
Q [?] Mr. President, Chairman Thomas and some others on the Hill have suggested taking up tax reform at the same time that you deal with Social Security reform, and to consider alternatives such as a value-added tax to the current payroll tax for financing Social Security. Are you willing to consider combining those two big projects, or do you prefer to keep them on separate tracks?
Q [?] Mr. President, I’d like to ask you about the Gonzales nomination, and specifically, about an issue that came up during it, your views on torture. You’ve said repeatedly that you do not sanction it, you would never approve it. But there are some written responses that Judge Gonzales gave to his Senate testimony that have troubled some people, and specifically, his allusion to the fact that cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment of some prisoners is not specifically forbidden so long as it’s conducted by the CIA and conducted overseas. Is that a loophole that you approve?
Q [?] Mr. President, at the beginning of your remarks today you referred to two criteria that you’re looking for on the Social Security fix, namely, permanent solvency and personal accounts. Does that mean that you would be willing to consider some changes that might broaden the base of revenues for the system as a way of addressing solvency?
Q [Judy] Thank you, Mr. President. Sir, can you update us, please, on your search for a director of national intelligence? Are you having trouble finding the right person? And do you worry at all that the delay might suggest to some people that it’s not a high priority for you?
Q [?] Thank you, sir. Any — back on Social Security — any transition to personal accounts is estimated to cost between $1 trillion to $2 trillion over 10 years. Without talking about specific proposals, do you plan to borrow that money, or will you, when your plan comes out —
Q [?] — will you be able to pay for it, though?
THE PRESIDENT: Ken. Welcome. Is this — let me ask you, are you here temporarily, permanently, and who do you represent?
Q [Ken] Well, that will be up to my wife, sir, as you well know.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, thank you.
Q [Ken] Mr. President, on Social Security, you say the math clearly shows — as you know, most of us became reporters because of our deep affection for math — if the math clearly shows it, why are you having so much trouble on the Hill getting some to share your urgency? Do you think they’re looking at the numbers differently, honestly, or are they running from the third rail?
THE PRESIDENT: Glad to have you here. (Laughter.) … Yes, Ken, follow-up. This is a home boy follow-up.
Q [Ken] I seem to remember a time in Texas on another problem, taxes, where you tried to get out in front and tell people it’s not a crisis now, it’s going to be a crisis down the line — you went down in flames on that one. Why —
THE PRESIDENT: Actually, I — if I might. (Laughter.) I don’t think a billion-dollar tax relief that permanently reduced property taxes on senior citizens was “flames,” but since you weren’t a senior citizen, perhaps that’s your definition of “flames.”
Q [Ken] I never got my billion —
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Because you’re not a senior citizen yet. Acting like one, however. Go ahead. (Laughter.)
Q [Ken] What is there about government that makes it hard —
THE PRESIDENT: Faulty memory. (Laughter.)
Q [Ken] — to address things in advance, before it’s a crisis?
THE PRESIDENT: Do we have a crisis in Texas now on school property taxes?
Q [Ken] Yes, we do.
Q [?] Are you going to put forward your own plan on Social Security, or not?
Q [?] Mr. President —
Q [?] Mr. President —
Q [Abril] Thank you, Mr. President. First of all, I have two questions, one on Iraq. You say about the troop withdrawal —
Q [Abril] No, I’m going to the question — to the answer —
Q [Abril] I’m — yes, I’m talking about troop withdrawal. Don’t mess me up, now. (Laughter.) You said in a response just now that it depends on the initiative of the Iraqis. Are you giving the Iraqis a timetable for what you’re going to do with troop withdrawal and when?
Q [Abril] Second question, on race. You brought it up in the inaugural address, and yesterday and today you have black leaders here at the White House discussing issues of race. Yesterday you didn’t discuss civil rights. But where are you in the second term as it relates to race in America?
Q [Mark?] Mr. President, do you think it’s a proper use of government funds to pay commentators to promote your policies?
Q [Mark?] Are you going to order that —
Q [Mark?] Fair enough. Are you ordering that there be an end to that practice?
Q [?] Well, Mr. Williams made a mistake —
Q [?] Mr. Williams made a mistake. Did the Department of Education make a mistake?
Q [?] What will happen to the people that made this decision?
Q [?] Thank you. Senate Democratic leaders have painted a very bleak picture of the U.S. economy. Harry Reid was talking about soup lines, and Hillary Clinton was talking about the economy being on the verge of collapse. Yet, in the same breath, they say that Social Security is rock-solid and there’s no crisis there. How are you going to work — you said you’re going to reach out to these people — how are you going to work with people who seem to have divorced themselves from reality?
^Gannon’s “Softball”^
Q [?] Mr. President, Senator Ted Kennedy recently repeated his characterization of Iraq as a “quagmire” and has called it your Vietnam. And the questioning of Alberto Gonzales and Condi Rice in the Senate has been largely used by Democrats to criticize your entire Iraq program, especially what you’re trying to do postwar. I wonder if you have any response to those criticisms. And what kind of an effect do you think these statements have on the morale of our troops and on the confidence of the Iraqi people that what you’re trying to do over there is going to succeed?
Q [Bennett] Mr. President, the Senate Republicans recently listed their priorities, and immigration reform wasn’t on it. Do you think this means it’s dead for this year? And why are you having so much trouble with your own party on that?
Q [Bennett] Why the resistance in your party so much?
Q [David] Mr. President, we saw the Democrats yesterday devote nine hours to Ms. Rice. We may see something similar with regard to Judge Gonzales. There’s just simply a lot of anger on the Hill by Democrats at you, personally, and at your administration. And isn’t this going to dog your efforts at whatever you do down the line, from the Supreme Court to immigration to whatever?
Q [David] Well, you had a Democratic Senator basically call your Secretary of State nominee a liar. That’s pretty harsh language coming from —
——————————-
There’s a video of the conference too if anyone wants to fill in the names better than I have. It’s not really that important for the point I want to make.
Did you see any Mensa or Summa Cum Laude questions in there? I sure didn’t. In fact, I’ll bet that 90% of the posters on this blog could have presented the same questions and I’ll bet less than half of them are “legitimate journalists”. I think even I could have burped out a question or two as good as at least one or two of those presented and I sure ain’t no stinkin’ journalist (no offense to stinkin’ journalists).
What I observed were typical, contemporaneous questions of all sorts – some broadly scoped, some quite narrow, some inane, some thoughtful, most biased, and a few even condescending or loaded. I even included a little playful banter to show which reporters were in the President’s good graces. If you weren’t paying attention, those would be Carl Cameron (FOX) and Ken (?). You’ll note that Gannon was neither called by name nor received any special banter that other “friendlies” enjoyed. Ooh, how Rovian – Mr. Bush treated him like a nobody to throw of the conspiracy hounds. Sneakiness to a level that boggles the mind.
You may also have observed that following Gannon’s question (the second to the last one), someone else (David) asked a question very similar to the one posed by Gannon regarding the President’s ability to deal with overt hostility from the Democrats. Isn’t this a giant blinking light that it was neither the credentials nor the question of the journalist that has irked the Liberals?
We all know it was Gannon’s publicly Conservative position that drew the ire of moonbats. Yes moonbats, I’m talking to you. This is but a single press conference and typical of any other press conference. But by reviewing the transcript line by line, the obviously misplaced hatred derived by the far Left from the response to Gannon’s presence is a blinking neon sign.
Bravo, AD! Alas, your comment will most likely fall on deaf ears, still, bravo!
Ouch, Darleen! This is a keeper. And my favorite line (out of many) is:
Take your Stalinist Certificate of Government Approved Journalism and License to Practice It and SHOVE IT.
Speaking of Larry King, the king of softball questions, does he get to have a WH press pass? After all, he doesn’t have a college degree, much less a journalism one, and he has an arrest in his past.
Yeah, but, hasn’t he had something like 7 or 8 young wives? That’s gotta count for something.
RE: julie’s post (February 20, 2005 11:53 PM)
Bravo, AD! Alas, your comment will most likely fall on deaf ears, still, bravo!
Hey, I’m just trying to keep up with the regulars.
Sadly, true. However, these retorts are important as markers to expose the flawed defenses submitted by the fringe. The aggregate of challenge further marginalizes them and weakens their position. After a while, most will quit listening to their nonsense though you can count on at least 10% to be utterly braindead.
“Now, Talon News is not really a news source . . .
According to the USSC it is. Now, which opinion do you think demands more respect and carries legal authority? Theirs? Or, yours? “
Hmm, if she isn’t a lawyer, does she even have the right to question if Talon News is a news source?
Technically, all a “journalist” CAN gripe about is the methodology in reporting and not the legal status of a news group.
“Speaking of Larry King, the king of softball questions, does he get to have a WH press pass? After all, he doesn’t have a college degree, much less a journalism one, and he has an arrest in his past.
Yeah, but, hasn’t he had something like 7 or 8 young wives? That’s gotta count for something. “
Were they all hot? 🙂
-=Mik
Great post Anonymous Drivel.
It is a shame that Anne probably won’t bother to respond to it.
But I think you called the moonbats for what they are-a pack of wolves going after somebody, because the gay angle made him an easy target.
I bet if he was in the WH throwing balls from the loony left, they would be celebrating him.
Just Me,
Thanks.
As far as Anne’s delayed response, that’s OK. I wasn’t really trying to bludgeon her over the head so much as present some factual evidence that seems to get ignored while irresponsible people perpetuate some contrivance to further a cause. This was an opportunity to present something more tangible than philosophizing or name-calling. The internet is a great repository of such documentation and some of it is actually relevant and fairly acquired. (Hint to moonbats – undisclosed contractual records between two private parties is NOT “fairly acquired”.)
But I will quote Anne’s recent comments (in italics) that did raise my dander:
So, blackmail perhaps or a very close personal relationship with someone in power turned a nobody into Charles Foster Kane in six days.
So now we’ve leaped from friendly plant to blackmailing extortionist who, to further his career or to promote his newly launched online presence in a relatively inconsequential news service, surreptitiously engaged in a tryst with some administration official with high authority? Where’s my list [shuffling virtual papers]… I need to append. I guess the associate wasn’t particularly powerful since Gannon still had to compete on a daily basis with other non-extortionists. Am I following this right? Um, this is deep in the moonbat cave I must say. Besides, I thought it was active participation on the part of the White House to engage Gannon as advocate plant, so extortion would not have been warranted or fruitful. Ah, moving goalposts once again.
To quote Leonard Pitts’ column on Gannongate: But, when media watchdogs are intimidated into becoming lap dogs, as some wise wit once said, that’s not reporting: That’s just taking dictation.
This may be out of context (proceed with caution). So Pitts thinks that Gannon (media watchdog) was intimidated into becoming a lap dog? So was this a case of reverse extortion? If Gannon didn’t ask “softwall” questions, the WH would proceed to “out” him and tell everyone about his previous life? Are you kidding me?! This is insanity of a five alarm nature. Please, Anne, tell me that I’ve misinterpreted your underlying point.
Nonetheless, I’ll bet more than half the country thought Gannon’s question (or questions – I’d never heard of the guy until this brouhaha erupted) was legitimate and expressed their view. I certainly thought his question was fair though punctuated a bit clumsily.
the biggest “advocate” hack writer ever to come along.
Utter hyperbole without the intent to be such; consequently, moonbat terminology. The biggest I’ve seen would be Helen Thomas though Terry Moran seems to be growing into the role nicely. To Moran’s credit, however, he has not attacked Gannon so maybe there is some hope for him.
Since you are sticking up for him despite the fact he’s an uncredentialed, uneducated, unseasoned partisan plant, then I have to wonder if “advocacy journalism” only concerns you when it comes with a left-wing slant.
Uncredentialed? Maybe, but that standard needs to be defined (and subsequently justified). Uneducated? BS. He was educated but to a degree apparently insufficient for your comfort.
I’m speculating he grew up in the public school system (at a minimum) so he was indeed “educated”. What other sanctioned level of expertise he had is unknown by me. However, if you deem that uneducated, maybe that is an indictment of our public education system. As such it should be reconstructed and funding removed since it has failed (by your standard that he is uneducated). But that is a debate for another day.
“Unseasoned”? He was less ripe than others, no doubt, but that should not exclude him from the fruitbasket particularly when others around him had turned rotten. “Partisan”? On the whole, yes, but from a generally pro-Conservative position and not from a pro-Administration one. Further, the vast majority of WH press are partisan and has leaned heavily Left for quite some time. “Plant”? Wild, irresponsible, speculation, thus moonbat terminology.
Anne brings up some good points and I think the challengers assembled reasonably refuted them. That is good for debate as fair-minded people grasp for justifiable, and honorable, conclusions.
However, and you all knew a “however” was coming, a good bit of what I’ve been reading over the past few days was clearly fringe and wholly ridiculous. Now, an exaggeration or two can be quite fun, but there’s a not so fine line between fun and stupid. Extreme partisanship yields stupid – or intentionally blind allegiance. Either one marginalizes one’s position and gets one herded into the moonbat cave. Consider this post a scarecrow. 😉
Now, I’ve made the same point about Gannon and the lack of repercussions had he thrown from the Left. I used the “So now that we’ve established, Mr. President, that you are Hitler reincarnate, would you please address…” preface to challenge those that selectively excoriate our resident “plant” (Rep. – Earth, District 10). Naturally, I agree with you 100%. I’ve yet to see a response of ANY sort anywhere to address this inconsistency. Curious isn’t it? Could it be that this is the stake that slays Dracula? Any moonbats want to enter the daylight and suck the logic from this vein?