CALL YOUR SENATORS RE: GANNON!

Raw Story broke the story tonight that the Democratic leadership is calling on Bush to launch an investigation into Gannon/Guckert:

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/index.php?p=117

John Aravosis of AMERICAblog.org says:

Your job, if you choose to accept it, is to contact your two Senators NOW and ask them to sign Senator Durbin's "Dear Colleague" letter about Jeff Gannon/Guckert, the fake GOP journalist that was given access to the White House.

Find your Senators' contact info here:

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm?OrderBy=state&Sort=ASC

and call and email them. Let's have their voice mail boxes FULL when they get to work tomorrow. Please call the Senators from your home state, and let them know what town you live in, so they know that you really are a constituent. And be nice.

Do you really want the Senate to investigate a retired Gay Escort and possibly shed light upon this website and other Escort sites where Gannon was advertised? Not to mention putting a national spotlight upon the Gay Escort profession. This could only lead to a negative backlast and possible crackdown upon the Gay Escort profession and sites used to advertise their profession.

I personally think it is cool that a retired Escort got a job as a journalist in the White House(fair and unbalanced or whatever). If he had more Liberal views I wonder who would be defending him and who would be blasting him? Does this mean that all Escorts now must be more concerned about trying a profession after Escorting? Do you know how many Escorts are just Escorting to pay their way through school and for what... to let their Escorting past kill their future job prospects. The reason many of the mainstream press are passing on this guy, is because they don't want others to start digging into their past, especially sexual past. Wonder how many reporters have hired an Escort...hmmm? This just might start a free for all on the press, which I know some would probably enjoy.

I just don't see where this can be good and I also think it is a waste of tax dollars to hold hearings about a reporter/escort, plant or not, in the White House press pool... Big Deal.

The irony of devotees of a gay escort web site calling their sneators to complain about the political activity of a gay escort! For different reasons, I agree with KY Top. Some things either have a life of their own or they don't. Let the Gannon things take its course.

You're completely missing the point. If you had taken the time to read Sen. Durbin's letter, you'd see that escorting is never mentioned, nor is it an issue. What is at issue is that this is yet another example of the Bush propaganda machine; this time, it was a fake reporter with a fake name and no experience and not representing any news media being planted in the press corps. As far as wasting tax dollars, you're probably thinking of Monica Lewinsky. What's at issue here is national security. If this person can pretend to be a journalist and get into the White House, what's to stop a terrorist from doing the same thing?

The only reason anyone has been discussing his gay escorting is the hypocrisy of the fact that the Bush White House and the GOP are anti-gay.

>The reason many of the mainstream press are passing on this

>guy, is because they don't want others to start digging into

>their past, especially sexual past.

No, it's because the mainstream press protects President Bush.

>Wonder how many reporters

>have hired an Escort...hmmm? This just might start a free for

>all on the press, which I know some would probably enjoy.

It's already been done. Have you ever heard of Dick Morris?

>Some

>things either have a life of their own or they don't. Let the

>Gannon things take its course.

People taking action and contacting their Congresspeople is part of it taking its course.

I'm not really sure WHAT I should be telling my senators (I'm from NY).

Should I point out that there's a sex scandal brewing in the White House? (Hilary Clinton would certainly understand that). Should I mention that someone previoulsy in the White House press corps sucks cock, or gets sucked, for money?

Perhaps I should mention that the gentlemen in question, because he might be gay, might someday get married, to another man, and therefore he should be the poster boy that demonstrates what's wrong in America these days?

Maybe I should just send the Senate the addresses of the websites in question; I'm sure they haven't seen these sites for at least a couple of weeks !

Give me a fucking break !

As the government contemplates wasting YET MORE money, for whatever reason, I'm not so sure that Gannongate rates high on the priority list.

Bush contemplates "copying & pasting" the Iraq experience to use in other Middle Eastern countries. Bush is evaluating the sincerity of European allies, and having come up short, will most undoubtedly plot some sort of revenge. Bush is so genuinely concerned about the fate of our older citizens that he is willing to ally the future of Social Security with our so-called demonstrably improving economy.

And I am supposed to write our senators, about a cock-tale, so that THEY can give Bush yet another reason to get an erection?

I agree with KY_Top and don't wish to assist in giving this issue yet more publicity. Like an orgasm, it'll pass. May not be pleasurable, but it will toss over nonetheless.

I was thinking that IF I do write my senators, I would probably mention the threat of 23 schools closing, for lack of funds and enrollment, or the need for ANY of NY's schools to have adequate books and technology. If I am feeling really gay, I might even be disposed to pointing out the new AIDS threat, you know, the one where an HIV infection, resistant to most of the successful drugs, progresses to AIDS in about three months.

Priorities, choices, decisions. Pardon me if I don't hop on this particular bandwagon, which I believe is headed towards irrelevance.

hd NYC

There is nothing to investigate. Bush can invite anyone he wishes to his press conference and Congress has no voice in the matter. Those pretending to be concerned with propaganda and nation security should be more concerned that so called reporters who hate Bush and who work for Democrat propaganda rags (NY Times, LA Times, CBS )are allowed in. God forbid that Maureen Dowd should ever get within shooting range of the President.

Careful, Merlin, your hypocrisy is showing.

Had this happened during the Clinton administration, you would be leading the charge yourself to call Congressmen, appoint a special prosecutor and to impeach the President. Instead, because Dumbleya is YOUR pretendident, he can get away with anything he wants as far as your concerned.

>There is nothing to investigate. Bush can invite anyone he

>wishes to his press conference and Congress has no voice in

>the matter. Those pretending to be concerned with propaganda

>and nation security should be more concerned that so called

>reporters who hate Bush and who work for Democrat propaganda

>rags (NY Times, LA Times, CBS )are allowed in. God forbid that

>Maureen Dowd should ever get within shooting range of the

>President.

Merlin, actually this is not true. The Secret Service has a say in who gets access to the White House. That is why this is a scandal. It's not an issue of who the President "invites" to a press conference, but how does a guy using false ID get past Secret Service screening to get access to the President. Something smells really bad here.

And in true irony, W had the balls to mention in his speech in Europe yesterday that a free press is essential to a successful democracy. If only he really beleived that - or maybe he doesn't think that the U.S. should be democracy anymore. Maybe democracy is only good for countries in the Middle East?

>Your job, if you choose to accept it, is to contact your two

>Senators NOW and ask them to sign Senator Durbin's "Dear

>Colleague" letter about Jeff Gannon/Guckert, the fake GOP

>journalist that was given access to the White House.

Rick, love ya, but save some of this vitriol for one of several issues likely to arise in the next few years. This isn't the first and won't be the last occurance of someone using/abusing the press for their own ends. From either major party.

Personally, I'm much more likely to write my Congresscritters about the planned abandonment of Amtrak. Very much more likely to make my opinions known on Social Security. (Once the plan is more fleshed out, that is.)

In the circus of life, this is just a sideshow. And not an important one that that. This issue just needs to fade away.

--EBG

P. S. I hope the Blogsphere again, soon, scoops the MSM, but on some truly important issue. Rather than the MSM contuing to drone on about how awful the Blogsphere is, I'd like to see the MSM wake up and resume being journalists.

>Rick, love ya, but save some of this vitriol

What was vitriolic about my post (or any of my posts, for that matter)?

>Personally, I'm much more likely to write my Congresscritters

>about the planned abandonment of Amtrak. Very much more

>likely to make my opinions known on Social Security.

That's great; I think you should do just that. And if you ever post information about Amtrak or SS here with a suggestion to contact my representatives, I'll either do it or I won't, but I won't advise you to "save it."

>In the circus of life, this is just a sideshow. And not an

>important one that that. This issue just needs to fade away.

Sorry to tell you this, but the outing of a covert CIA operative and the planting of a fake reporter to disseminate propaganda are not a "sideshow" and the issue isn't fading away. The General Accounting Office was asked today to investigate "whether the Administration violated the ban on prepackaged news stories by siphoning print stories to James D. Guckert." You see, this has nothing to do with escorting so you can relax.

>I'm not really sure WHAT I should be telling my senators

I thought my post was pretty clear; I was asking for anyone who cared to ask their senators to sign Sen. Durbin's letter, asking for an investigation.

>Perhaps I should mention that the gentlemen in question,

>because he might be gay, might someday get married, to another

>man, and therefore he should be the poster boy that

>demonstrates what's wrong in America these days?

What does Jeff Gannon's sexuality have to do with anything?

>I was thinking that IF I do write my senators, I would

>probably mention the threat of 23 schools closing, for lack of

>funds and enrollment, or the need for ANY of NY's schools to

>have adequate books and technology. If I am feeling really

>gay, I might even be disposed to pointing out the new AIDS

>threat, you know, the one where an HIV infection, resistant to

>most of the successful drugs, progresses to AIDS in about

>three months.

That's great that there are issues that matter to you. You can write or call your representatives at any time to make your voice heard; you don't have to wait for me to prompt you to do so.

>There is nothing to investigate. Bush can invite anyone he

>wishes to his press conference

Actually, according to Scott McClellan and Ari Fleisher, that isn't the way it works at all.

>You see, this has nothing to do with escorting

>so you can relax.

Right, it has "nothing to do with escorting."

That's why you began a thread a week ago entitled "PROOF JEFF GANNON IS AN ESCORT." You posted "proof" that he's an escort because "it has nothing to do with escorting."

It's also why all of the liberal bloggers who started this little sex scandal did so by exposing Gannon's work as an escort, complete with posting naked pictures from his escorting site. They did that because this has "nothing to do with escorting."

If you're going to lie about what you're doing, you should at least endeavor to be a little less transparent about it.

>It's not an issue of who the President

>"invites" to a press conference, but how does a guy using

>false ID get past Secret Service screening to get access to

>the President. Something smells really bad here.

Kindly stop repeating this lie. When he applied for Secret Service clearance, he did so under his legal name. "Jeff Gannon" was just a psudenyom he used for writing.

>And in true irony, W had the balls to mention in his speech in

>Europe yesterday that a free press is essential to a

>successful democracy. If only he really beleived that - or

>maybe he doesn't think that the U.S. should be democracy

>anymore. Maybe democracy is only good for countries in the

>Middle East?

Some day, I'd love to know how having a partisan flack attend press conferences is somehow contrary to a free press when every real reporter is also allowed in.

The reason this story isn't catching on with anyone beyond trite liberals who are consumed with hatred of George Bush is because everyone sane knows that it doesn't fucking matter in the slightest - let alone imperil liberty as we know it - to have some conservative who may or may not be a "journalist" standing next to Helen Thomas and the New York Times and the LA Times and everyone else during press conferences. Who the fuck cares??

>Sorry to tell you this, but the outing of a covert CIA . . .

Yet another lie used to justify the McCarthyite witch hunt into Gannon's sexual life.

There is no proof at all - NONE - that he had access to any classified documents or had anything to do with the Valerie Plame memo. The sole basis for these allegations is that, during an interview with Joe Wilson, he referred to a CIA report - the same report which was DESCRIBED IN DETAIL IN THE WALL ST. JOURNAL THE WEEK BEFORE.

Even the Washington Post said that the effort to link Jeff Gannon to the Valerie Plame incident was total baseless bullshit (link courteously provided below).

But to those for whom Hatred of George Bush is a religion, and to those whose lives are spent reading "blogs" written by and for those who think exactly the same way, facts don't matter.

Keep prattling on about irrelevancies and making yourselves more inconsequential in the process.

Just like the stupid Republicans of the 1990s who spent all of their energies on Clinton's sex non-scandals, the only ones being hurt by these "scandals" are the ones who are peddling them.

_________________________

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23303-2005Feb14.html

"Did Guckert actually ever get access to an internal CIA memo related to the Plame case? It seems unlikely.

Maguire, for instance, points out that Guckert's first mention of the memo apparently came several days after the Wall Street Journal had already written about it -- and that his mention of it, in an interview with Plame's husband, Joe Wilson, was almost word for word from the Journal."

Media double standard, an analysis

Media double standard, an analysis

by John in DC - 2/23/2005 12:34:00 PM

A Buzzflash interview with Communications professor and expert Mark Crispin Miller:

The media's bizarre avoidance of this very juicy story makes a few things very clear--or I should say, very clear again. First of all, it's further proof that there is no "liberal bias" in the US corporate press--none whatsoever. It also reconfirms the fact that this media system is not simply "sensationalistic," and therefore apt to print whatever lurid stories its employees can dig up. There is a tabloid element, of course, but it works according to a double standard that is more ideological than commercial. Simply put, the US media reports sex scandals only when they seem to tar "the left," i.e., the Democratic party. As long as they involve the Democrats, the press is clearly willing to report such scandals even when they're fabricated. On the other hand, the press goes deaf and blind to "moral" scandals that involve Republicans, no matter how egregious and well-documented....

Now Bush's White House is embroiled in a sex scandal that is both more sordid and more serious than anything involving Clinton's infamous libido. This involves not just a huge security lapse, but what appears to be yet one more case of the Bush White House illegally deploying propaganda tactics through the institutions of the Fourth Estate.

Moreover, Gannon/Guckert seems to have been given classified information. He evidently knew of "shock and awe" before it was announced, for instance. The story's busting out all over, and getting uglier and weirder by the day--but not on the networks, not on cable, and, in print, primarily in opinion pieces. If this had happened in a Democratic White House, there would be no escaping it, and the rightists would be shrieking that the President of the United States had taught our precious children all about gay sex for hire. (According to the right, remember, it was Clinton--not his enemies, and not the press-- who went public with the news about those blow jobs.)....

The same silence persists today; and what's crazier about it now, of course, is that this bunch purports to be real big on "moral values." In other words, they--unlike Clinton--just don't do that stuff. These are the ones imposing giant fines on radio stations for "indecent" speech, and the ones pushing abstinence-only sex education, and--above all--persecuting gays in every way available. And yet their various illicit recreations get no press outside of cyberspace....

Those liberals who refuse to speak out on this issue just don't get it. They think they're being politically correct concerning gays, when all they're really doing is covering for the sickest homophobes....

The point of going after Gannon/Guckert for his day job--and outing all his rightist clients--is not an anti-gay move. Rather, it's a way to demonstrate the bad faith of the homophobes, and, still more important, the psychological impossibility of their position. To note that this whole gay-baiting movement is itself the work of closet cases is to illuminate the pathological dimension of that movement.

RE: Media double standard, an analysis

>Now Bush's White House is embroiled in a sex scandal that is

>both more sordid and more serious than anything involving

>Clinton's infamous libido.

But wait . . . we keep hearing from people like Rick Munroe that this has nothing to do with Gannon's being gay or his escorting (yes, that is the same Rick Munroe who posted pictures of Gannon naked and created a thread entitled PROOF GANNON IS AN ESCORT!, but I digress).

So, if Rick is right, and this has nothing to do with Gannon's being an escort or being gay, how is this a "sex scandal"?

And while I vigorously opposed the disgusting impeachment efforts by Republicans against Clinton in the 1990s, I must say that anyone who claims not to see any difference between: (a) looking into the private sexual conduct of the President of the United States as a result of purjurious testimony he gave about that very same conduct in a deposition and (b) uncovering the private Internet sex activities of some anonymous irrelevant nothing who nobody ever heard of and whose only crime is being conservative, has some serious moral and/or intellectual deficiencies.

>That's why you began a thread a week ago entitled "PROOF JEFF

>GANNON IS AN ESCORT." You posted "proof" that he's an escort

>because "it has nothing to do with escorting."

I posted it because this is a website about escorts. I didn't post it on the Diana Ross Message Board. Try to keep up.

I know you'll be very disappointed to read this, Doug, but none other than WorldNetDaily, one of the top right-wing, most conservative pro-Bush news sites on the internet, has just posted a scathing story about Gannon. As John Aravosis writes on AMERICAblog.org, "This guy spells out exactly why this is a story. Exactly why this is so outrageous. And note, his column doesn't even criticize us, the liberal bloggers. It is pure and simple an article about how outrageous Gannon's and Talon's AND THE WHITE HOUSE'S actions were in this entire affair."

Gee, I guess it isn't just the "liberal lynch mob" that's got a problem with Gannon.

FULL STORY: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42974

I encourage each of you to contact your representatives and ask them to sign Sen. Durbin's letter. Here are my reasons:

Bush has declared war on the gay community with his efforts to enshrine permanent second class status for gay people in the Constitution. Given this political climate, it is important for all of us to contact our representatives on all issues we each believe are important. It is important for us to support our allies in Congress, and to show our enemies that their political attacks on us will not silence our voices, but will only encourage us to be more vocal and active in the political process.

There are legitimate questions as to why someone with Guckert's credentials would be allowed to sit in the White House press corps. As I see it, there are only two possible scenarios for what might have happened:

(1) I don't believe the Bush administration has a policy of allowing any "wanna-be" reporter off the street to sit in the White House press corps. Though Guckert may have legitimately been trying to pursue a career as a reporter (and this is a BIG stretch) he obviously does not have the experience to be on the level to be admitted to the White House press corps. If the Secret Service did not know that Guckert lacked reasonble credentials, and also did not know about his past "career activities," one can reasonably ask why the Secret Service did not know about these things. Anyone with that kind of direct access to the President should have been thoroughly checked out. If this scenario is true, there are very serious security issues that need to be investigated.

(2) The other possibility is that Guckert was checked out, and the powers that be were aware of his lack of credentials and his past career activities. If this is the case, there is not a security issue, but there is a big political/ethical issue. If the powers in charge knew these things and allowed Guckert access to the President, one can reasonably ask why they would do this. If they only wanted someone to lob softball questions to the President, there are many bright kids from College Republicans that would jump at the chance to do this. Why take the risk of having someone with this background be exposed, unless there was a deeper relationship between Guckert and the White House staff? If there is no deeper relationship, then whoever made the decision to grant him access needs to 'fess up and admit this was an error in judgement. (Oh, silly me. I forgot, the Bush administration never makes mistakes!) The absence of answering this directly gives the appearance something more substantial is being hidden. If there is nothing to hide, why not clear the air?

Yes, Guckert is entitled to privacy and the opportunity to pursue any career, regardless of his past. However, he also made the choice to put himself in a very public position where one could reasonably expect he would be under the public's scrutiny. This was HIS choice.

Guckert's past activities are just an interesting irony given Bush's preoccupation with "moral values" and his animosity to gay people. Those that unconditionally support Bush or attack our friends in Congress (as Guckert did with his softball questions and derogatory references to Sens. Clinton and Reid) give tacit support to Bush's efforts to make us second class citizens. Why wouldn't we all be angry at someone that (1) is supporting those who attack us, although (2) they really are one of us, while (3) they choose to lie about who they are, for their own personal gain at our expense?

I encourage everyone to contact their representatives and ask for an investigation. If you have not read Sen. Durbin's letter, I hope you will at least do so before you decide not to contact your reps.

>You're completely missing the point. If you had taken the

>time to read Sen. Durbin's letter, you'd see that escorting is

>never mentioned, nor is it an issue.

You know darn well any investigation will dig into Gannon's past, don't act so naive.

>The only reason anyone has been discussing his gay escorting

>is the hypocrisy of the fact that the Bush White House and the

>GOP are anti-gay.

So this is a reason for a reporter for a Republican Publication to lose his job? Because he was a Gay Escort that a liberal Blog outed.

>

>>The reason many of the mainstream press are passing on this

>>guy, is because they don't want others to start digging into

>>their past, especially sexual past.

>

>No, it's because the mainstream press protects President

>Bush.

You obviously aren't reading all the comments from the main stream press on this.

>It's already been done. Have you ever heard of Dick Morris?

>

Was he one of your Clients? :*

Sorry Rick, don't agree with you on this call for an investigation thing.

I can see it now, a big blowup of "Bulldog-DC" 's Hooboy Review on a easel in a hearing room. :7

Glad Hooboy is out of the country, makes it harder to serve a subpeona wanting e-mail addresses and phone #'s of his Reviewers.

>You know darn well any investigation will dig into Gannon's

>past, don't act so naive.

Oops...OK, I'll go call Congress right away and tell them to drop the whole darn thing. :+

>So this is a reason for a reporter for a Republican

>Publication to lose his job?

The "publication" is really a front for GOPUSA, and, as published in the New Yorker today, "He is not a reporter but a propagandist."

>>You see, this has nothing to do with escorting

>>so you can relax.

>

>Right, it has "nothing to do with escorting."

>

>That's why you began a thread a week ago entitled "PROOF JEFF

>GANNON IS AN ESCORT." You posted "proof" that he's an escort

>because "it has nothing to do with escorting."

>

>It's also why all of the liberal bloggers who started this

>little sex scandal did so by exposing Gannon's work as an

>escort, complete with posting naked pictures from his

>escorting site. They did that because this has "nothing to do

>with escorting."

They did that because IT IS THE TRUTH. They investigated this guy, like good journalist should. They discovered the truth and they reported it. That's why.

>

>If you're going to lie about what you're doing, you should at

>least endeavor to be a little less transparent about it.

Listen Doug, why don't you stop defending this Guckert/Gannon gut, who is not worth defending, and simply admit that is is an embarassment for your side.

I can't believe the right wingers who scream fake outrage about a supposed reporters sex life, when the information was available in the oublic domain. If only you guy had the same outrage about personal private sexual affairs during the Clinton administration. What's good for the goose is good for the Gannon!

> What is at issue is that

>this is yet another example of the Bush propaganda machine;

>this time, it was a fake reporter with a fake name and no

>experience and not representing any news media being planted

>in the press corps.

I agree. There's some thing very un-kosher about Gannongate and it deserves an investigation.

>What's at issue here is

>national security. If this person can pretend to be a

>journalist and get into the White House, what's to stop a

>terrorist from doing the same thing?

I agree. Scary thought -- isn't it?

>The only reason anyone has been discussing his gay escorting

>is the hypocrisy of the fact that the Bush White House and the

>GOP are anti-gay.

I agree that Gannongate needs to be investigated. Unfortunately, and I hope that I'm wrong about this, but part of me says "be careful what you wish for or you will get it". I have a sick feeling that the Bush White House will turn the gay escort non-issue into another opportunity for gay bashing. x( :-(

Just my $0.02.

Justice