Gannon, Guckert, etc…
Apparently my lack of outrage about the Jeff Gannon prostitution revelations means I don’t get it or something. So, let me try to address some of the criticism and make a few additional points
On thing I should have made clearer in my previous post was that my outrage over this whole “outing gay Republicans” game is something I’ve been meaning to write about for a long time. I probably would have gotten around to complaining about this stuff eventually, which is why in this case a made sure to add a caveat. Like I said previously, I have no problem with outing a public figure when it’s done in context with anti-gay remarks, but that’s not the case here. The problem with Gannon is that he’s a conservative shill who’s been granted unprecedented access to the White House press room and who may or may not have had a role in blowing the cover of a CIA agent. His alleged homophobia which is being used as an excuse for his outing is irrelevant to the issues at hand.
The fact is, Gannon’s homosexuality is being used in a negative way to heighten the impact of this story. If this is just about his prostitution, then why the inclusion of this frequent modifier?
So in the end, why does this matter? Why does it matter that Jeff Gannon may have been a gay hooker named James Guckert with a $20,000 defaulted court judgment against him? So he somehow got a job lobbing softball questions to the White House.
[. . .]
Say what you will about Monika Lewinsky – a tasteless episode, “inappropriate,” whatever. Monika wasn’t a gay prostitute running around the West Wing.
[. . .]
Someone had to make a decision to let all this happen. Who? Someone committed a crime in exposing Valerie Plame and now it appears a gay hooker may be right in the middle of all of it? Who?
Is there a reason why a gay hooker is worse than a straight one?1
In the post I quote above, John actually goes into detail about why he’s beating the gay angle. For him, the hypocrisy of the Republican party using a gay man to help push an anti-gay agenda is too much to take. Fair enough, but if that’s the problem, how is this any different from the rumors of homosexuality that have followed Ken Mehlman, Scott McClellan2, and David Drier? The “gay Republican hypocrite” angle has been beaten to death. Concentrating on it here just muddles the issues and distracts from the greater point.
Does the Bush Administration keep a conservative plant in the White House press pool? Did they intentionally leak the identity of an undercover operative who specialized in weapons of mass destruction? These are important questions whose answers get to the very heart of our government. Photos of Jeff Guckert’s cock don’t help us get those answers.
While I’m engaging in hyperbole, my last post on this solicited a number of outrageous comments. I guess I hit a nerve or something. For example :
The fact that he was a paid escort, a whore, a criminal (in the eyes of the law), a perhaps mentally unbalanced individual, blithely hanging out with the White House press corps, winning favor from the WH Press secretary is at least shocking, at best scandalous.
An escort and a whore?? Wow. Seriously though, this whole “perhaps mentally unbalanced” thing may fly in the comments section of a semi-obscure blog, but psychoanalyzing people from afar won’t help you win any arguments in the real world.
Even more outrageous, however, was this comment :
A vocal and powerful proportion of the Republican party thinks homosexuality is evil and wrong. They think homosexuals should rot in hell…Of course not every Republican feels that way, but the Republican party has done nothing to distance itself from this stance and is very close to embracing it. A homosexual republican is akin to a black person who is in the KKK because they agree with some of their positions.
While I agree that the Republican party has been for all practical purposes hijacked by the radical right, that analogy is so completely off base, it’s a wonder that the GOP weren’t just compared to Nazis instead. Do I really need to bother explaining the differences between the Ku Klux Klan and the Republican party?
1: Here’s a revealing quote from the comments section : “It’d be the same scandal if it were a female, straight, prostitute with special access. It’d probably be less fun though.” Well, this may be “fun” to some people, but I prefer to not think of this as a game.
2: By the way, it’s amazing how quickly idle speculation about “blackmail” got added to the talking points on this one. Within a couple days, every other post on this issue seems to have thinly-veiled attacks about “questions that deserve answers” and such. Everybody would do well to take things like this with a huge grain of salt.
30 comments
Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Yeah, cuz comparing them to Nazis would have been way off base. Here is what our Presidents spiritual advisor said:
“”When lawlessness is abroad in the land, the same thing will happen here that happened in Nazi Germany. Many of those people involved with Adolph Hitler were Satanists, many of them were homosexuals–the two things seem to go together.”
–Pat Robertson
Who did Falwell (these are not fringe players) blame for 9/11? He said God was punishing the homosexuals.
Sure, they don’t lynch anybody but they don’t need to. God is going to punish the faggots. Yes its a minority of the party, so in that sense the comparison to the KKK is bad, but that is sort of my point. Its one thing to have disagreements within a party. Its another for part of a party to think that other members of the party are evil because of who they are. And here is where the hypocrisy comes in. The people labelled as evil seem to be ok with it. At least thats they way it looks when they stand under the tent next to the hate-mongers and don’t say a word. The democrats used to get both the racist vote and the black vote. That was an unstable coalition and ending it went a long way towards diminishing the power of the racists. Its about time the gay-haters were exposed and the rest of the Republican party was forced to say they disagree with the hatred.
Comment by TJonBergman — February 17, 2005 @ 4:32 am
You’re right about the whole “GAY WHORE” thing. But I think this whole story wouldn’t have gotten the ink that it has if there weren’t genitalia close-ups of the gay whore in question — which proves my theory that genitalia close-ups are always good for publicity! Are you listening, Joseph Fiennes?
Comment by Kyle — February 17, 2005 @ 7:01 am
Having reread your post and calmed down, I am a little disappointed in you. Not only did you introduce my comment as ?even more outrageous??, you then ended with a nice bit of condescension about needing to explain the difference between the GOP and the KKK. But your little tirade is completely unjustified. Do I need to explain to you how analogies work? Lets look at what I said. I said a homosexual republican is akin to a black in the KKK. You interpret that to mean Republican party=KKK. Here is a second chance for you. Is that a reasonable interpretation? What if I had said a homosexual republican is akin to a millionaire CEO being in the communist party. By your logic that would mean I think Republicans are communists, wouldn?t it? The comparison I was making was about the poor fit between the individual and the group. It was not a comparison of the groups. My point was that your assertion that homosexuality is just another issue that you may or may not agree with is pretty stupid. Many Republicans hate homosexuals for who they are. That is not a policy disagreement. Maybe the CEO millionaire analogy would have been better, but I think my point has more merit than your position. Gannon and Falwell don?t have a policy disagreement. Falwell thinks Gannon should go immediately to hell and not look back simply because of who he is. That is closer to how members of the KKK felt about blacks than it is to how I feel about people who support a flat tax.
Comment by TJonBergman — February 17, 2005 @ 9:40 am
The gay +/- prostitute seems like a distraction from the continuing revelations regarding the propaganda machine of the Bush administration. The fact that McClellan knew Guckert was using an alias certainly suggest the two were in cahoots. The real media needs to keep hounding Scott McClellan about how this man got repeated access to the press room and recognized so frequently for questions/statements.
Comment by Becky — February 17, 2005 @ 9:44 am
The point here, I think, should be to detsroy thse lying hypocties by any means neccesary. And if it means exploiting Jeff gannon public life (notice I didn’t say private? He’s a whore, so it’s all in the open) in order to do it, I say so be it.
And it’s fun watching the republicans pretend to care about gay rights. Besides, I’m loving watching this backstabbing hateful traitor get what’s coming to him. This guy is a liar, used by liars to decive us. And he’s a whore. And he’s a self hating, backstabbing traitor whore who sells out the gay community for 30 pieces of silver.
Anyway, the point is, anything we can do to keep the fire on these people, the better. That’s simply the world we live in. No one can seriously argue that we’re anti-gay, o that the point is that we’re trying to ruin jimjeff’s life because he’s gay. We’re trying to find out why in the hell a slime like jimjeff was allowed in the press pool without proper vetting. Because from here, it certainly looks like something fishy is going on, and there’s a sex angle somewhere.
Republicans never, ever run away from exploiting any advantage, and neither should we. Heck, they impeached a guy over a blow job. The least we can do is wonder who Gannnon’s been schtupping in the white house, and how that led to his getting priviledged access to the president.Let’s face it, we simply don’t get to be high minded right now, because the country isn’t run by high minded people. So we have to be vicious.
Comment by Ross A Lincoln — February 17, 2005 @ 10:02 am
I’m not stupid. You’re using the relationship between gay people and the Republican party to draw a parallel to the relationship between a black man and the KKK. As I said before, that analogy is unfair.
I’m not saying this because I support the Republican party, but because extremist analogies like this one are obnoxious and they won’t change anyone’s mind. Okay, I guess I do need to explain the difference….
The KKK is a fringe white supremacist organization whose primary purpose is to harm African Americans. The Republican party which represents half of this country ostensibly stands for smaller government and a return to traditional values.
The KKK favors “southern justice” and has publicly spoken in favor of lynching people. The GOP’s members largely see homosexuality as either a choice or an affliction for which they oppose giving, in their words, “special rights”.
I don’t mean to be condescending here, but there’s a big difference between a group of murderous thugs and a bunch of selfish assholes. When a political party is favored by half the population, it’s a pretty good bet that there are gonna be crazies in it. Just because those crazies are in control of the party itself doesn’t mean that their views speak for everyone.
I’ve written in the past about how the moderates in the GOP are just the Trojan horses in which the right-wingers are sneaking into our government, but just because I’m unwilling to absolve them of responsibility for helping push a narrow-minded agenda doesn’t mean that I question the sincerity of their moderate positions. Your repeated insistence that many Republicans hate homosexuals for “who they are” doesn’t account for the social moderates like Arnie and Rudy or the Libertarian leaning Repubs who don’t give a shit either way.
Here’s a scenario to consider : Let’s say a guy is in favor of massive tax cuts for the rich, preemptive war, banning all forms of abortion, and underfunding social services, public education, and regulatory agencies…but he’s gay. Let’s also say for a moment that he sorta cares about gay issues like marriage and adoption, but thinks they’re not as important as national security and the economy. Would this guy be better off in the GOP or Democratic party? Would his failure to put his lifestyle above his commitment to small government et. al. make him a greater hypocrite than if the situation were reversed?
Comment by greg — February 17, 2005 @ 10:36 am
Agree with much of your post, but I have to say, it’s we’re not talking about a lifestyle. I know you probably meant something besides “lifestyle”, but it’s an extremely poor choice of words, and obscures the bigger issue.
We’re talking about the essence of a person, the heart of who they are and what forms their world. Being a gay party boy at the club is a lifestyle. Falling in love and pair-bonding with people of the same sex is simply life. The problem with gay republicans isn’t that they’re voting against their lifestyle, it’s that their choosing selfishness over their actual personhood.
The republican platform is explicitly anti-gay. So yes, the gay person in question is an incredible hypocrite, precisely because he’s choosing selfish nonsense over who he is as a person, and then daring to hide behind who he is when it comes back to bite him.
Kind of like facists who hide behind the first amendment, even though the firs thing they want to do once empowered, is to pretty much destroy it.
Comment by Ross A Lincoln — February 17, 2005 @ 10:57 am
Apparently, it’s we’re not checking grammar either.
Comment by Ross A Lincoln — February 17, 2005 @ 10:57 am
See how fun it is to be condescended to? I don’t think you are stupid but I still think you misunderstand my analogy. If I had gone with the gay/Republican is to CEO/communist analogy, would you have felt the need to write paragraphs explaining the difference between Republcans and communists? I hope not. I agree that bringing in the KKK or the Nazis may not be the best way to further a rational debate, but I think the actual point of the analogy is still valid: there is a difference between policy disputes and bigotry. Yes, gay marriage and adoption are policy issues so your example makes sense on that level. But that does not obscure the fact that Gannon and Falwell voted for the same guy, despite the fact that Falwell hates gays and Gannon is gay. I guess it is not so much hypocrisy as incompatability. That is what needs to be pointed out at every opportunity. Not only the incompatability between gays and gay haters, but between the very moderates you speak of and the gay-haters. I would like to see someone pull out some of the worst quotes from Santorum/Fallwell/Robertson, etc. and ask Arny what he thinks of them. What would I do if I were the ultra-conservative gay guy? I don’t know, but my primary objective would be to get some of the leadership of the Republican party to openly repudiate the hate that comes from the religious right. The social moderates like Arny and Rudy can lead the way. Not only will exposing the rifts in the Republican party help further gay rights (I hope America has come too far for them to openly embrace the outright hatred), it will help Democrats. Divide and conquer.
Comment by TJonBergman — February 17, 2005 @ 11:15 am
I think the reason it’s important to flog the gay angle is because it makes them uncomfortable. The speculation of blackmail being involved is far more plausible if the relationship is not just adulterous by bisexually adulterous. The embarassment of the Administration with their own anti-gay supporters will be keener if they have to handle the gay spin as well as the prostitute in the white house spin.
Anything that hurts their ability to laugh it off is fair game. I saw one conservative story that raised the question of whether or not Gannon was a threat to children because he was a gay teacher. Do I think gays are more likely to be pedophiles, hell no. Do many of Bush’s supporters? Apparently so.
Confusion to the enemy.
Comment by Erasamus — February 17, 2005 @ 11:39 am
You could make the same argument about Christian Republicans who don’t seem to give a shit about poor people. I’m not saying that I agree with the choice that gay people have made to join the Republican party, but that I understand it. I don’t think a gay person who joins the GOP is any more of a back-stabber than a pro-life Catholic (like Dennis Kucinich) who joins the Democrats.
I totally agree, but in this particular case I think it threatens to obscure the more egregious issues at hand.
I also think rubbing this in the faces of homophobes could be done with a little more class than the standard “gotcha!” tactic. I think gleefully outing someone on the right for hypocrisy could help reinforce the notion that homosexuality is something that should be hidden. While it doesn’t entirely fit in this case, it’s important that we don’t fall into the trap of acting like bombshell revelations about gay conservatives have uncovered something that’s wrong.
If I were outing a gay Republican, I’d make sure to add something like “What makes this situation so tragic is that the right’s homophobia forces some of their strongest supporters even deeper into the closet. Gay Republicans aren’t hiding for us, my conservative friends, they’re hiding from you.”
Comment by greg — February 17, 2005 @ 11:51 am
But Greg, Conservatives are the ones trying to make the gay part the focus, not liberals. We’re the ones making hay of the fact that he’s a prostitute, yes, a gay one, helping the family values party.
Again, liberals aren’t going around bashing him because he’s gay. And we’re certainly not “outing” a gay republican. He outed himself. What we’re doing is outing a republican prostitute who recieved preferential treatment in the whitehouse press corps vetting process.
Being a Prostitute is a crime. So why the hell was he let in? How did he pass the FBI screenign process? Who does he know? Was he having an affair with someone in the whitehouse? Is this a blackmail situation, and nepotism situation, a quid pro quo situation, or a combination of the three?
See, we have a prostitute, claiming to be a moral conservative, who also happens to be gay and a prostitute. Destroying him professionally because he’s a goddamned sellout hypocrite liar is just gravy.
However, so no one misunderstands me, for the record, I think that if conservative gays come out againt gay rights, then they should be outed. Let them share the same public scrutinty that they gleefully force onto those who actually have the courage to come out and fight for their rights as human beings.
Comment by Ross A Lincoln — February 17, 2005 @ 12:18 pm
You could make the same argument about Christian Republicans who don’t seem to give a shit about poor people.
I assume you’re referring to poor people voting against their best economic interests. Good point, except in America, we believe that your economic station is something you can change. Adn right wing christians actually do think poor people are lazy and they do think your economic status is a sign of your moral worth. Sure, it’s retarded of these people to consistently vote against their economic interests, but that’s not the same thing as working against their actual personhood.
Now, if the GOP explicitely enshrined hatred of right wing christians in their platform, you’d have a point. But they don’t.
Comment by Ross A Lincoln — February 17, 2005 @ 12:22 pm
Sorry for the multiple posts, but I do need to say, TJonBergman, please calm down. Greg’s a really good guy, definitely not a dick, and he’s arguing in good faith against your points. Please don’t get so personal about it. Save it for the bad guys.
Comment by Ross Lincoln — February 17, 2005 @ 12:25 pm
Hey Ross, I am calm. I think we are having a pretty reasonable discussion. I did feel like my point was unfairly caricatured and then condescended to but I don’t think I ever got personal (did I?). I only got into the discussion because I usually agree with Greg and this was an exception. I didn’t realize he was mostly thinking about it in terms of outing gay Republicans while I was just thinking about how gays fit into the Republican party. Then I got mad at being called out on the front page (which I guess is an honor. A first anyway). I think we are all squared away. No harm no foul.
Comment by TJonBermgan — February 17, 2005 @ 12:38 pm
I completely agree with this:
If I were outing a gay Republican, I’d make sure to add something like “What makes this situation so tragic is that the right’s homophobia forces some of their strongest supporters even deeper into the closet. Gay Republicans aren’t hiding for us, my conservative friends, they’re hiding from you.”
Comment by TJonBermgan — February 17, 2005 @ 12:41 pm
You should reread the post I linked to above and note its origin. My beef isn’t with Republicans making a big deal out of the gay stuff (I’ve come to expect homophobia from those parts), but with liberals using homosexuality in a negative way to taunt conservatives.
Huh? This is the first time I’ve heard that Jeff Gannon had outed himself. Considering that he was hiding behind a pseudonym, it’s hard to argue that Gannon was out about anything. Guckert on the other hand…
No, I’m talking about Christians who vote Republican while eschewing the teachings of Jesus. I dunno about you, but I consider religious beliefs (or lack thereof) to be a strong factor in someone’s “personhood”.
Comment by greg — February 17, 2005 @ 12:47 pm
Sorry about that, by the way. If I don’t have much to post about, but have a lengthy comment to make, sometimes I promote the comment to post status. I didn’t use your username because I didn’t want it to seem like I was attacking you personally. Even if I find myself in the minority on certain aspects of the Gannon story, we’re all ultimately on the same side here.
Comment by greg — February 17, 2005 @ 12:52 pm
No problem. Sorry for the pissy tone of my earlier posts. Im over it now! Keep up the good work.
Comment by TJonBermgan — February 17, 2005 @ 1:00 pm
Some interesting comments here. I would just like to point out the obvious, that just because you’re attracted to people who share your gender emotionally, physcally, or in both ways, doesn’t mean you would automatically support 1) Protected Status for people like yourself, 2) your ( or anyone else’s) right to fulfill your desires, either publically, with the support of the community, or privately, even in secret.
In fact, you may not believe in consistency at all, and may have no problem doing all sorts of contradictory things.
We may all agree that people with non-exclusively hetrosexual interests should believe in and support gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and trans-gender rights, but it does not follow that what Gannon (or any other individual) does in their bedroom or in their mind will, or even should make demands on their political life. For the majority of human history the very opposite situation has been the norm and while we all know that this is the best damn country and culture in the world, it seems unreasonable for the argument over this Gannon character to be over whether he can rightly be condemned for not being a gay-rights partisan because he is gay. It may be diapointing, but it is perfectly reasonable for him to be gay without being proud, out, or honest wiht himself or others.
It has the flavor of a Marxist complaining that a worker who doesn’t support revolutionary politics is deluded and hypocritical, when in fact he just doesn’t agree with his revolutionary politics.
Comment by Pants — February 17, 2005 @ 3:02 pm
Why This Witchhunt Must End
I have a very small circumference of the blogosphere that I traverse in
my daily news updates. When I see posts on the same topics fly across
all of them, I know that some idea has sparked a fire. This week, the
blogosphere-wide debate seems to be o…
Trackback by Mellifluence — February 17, 2005 @ 5:27 pm
I guess I should feel some sort of weird honor at getting a reaction from greg. For reference, I wrote:
Greg footnoted that as a “revealing quote from the comments section” after this paragraph of his:
I specifically point out in my comment that one is not worse than the other, so I’m not sure what the problem is there. Or maybe it’s revealing in that it shows that there isn’t a difference?
Anyway, I’m sorry if I offended with my use of the word “fun” — that wasn’t my intention. I don’t think it’s necessarily “fun like playing a game” but fun as in “amusing” or “entertaining to watch” (a minor semantic difference, I suppose). I guess I just don’t understand the problem. It was definitely “fun” to watch The Daily Show’s take on it yesterday, so I guess I’m not alone.
Comment by Sean — February 17, 2005 @ 11:53 pm
No, I’m talking about Christians who vote Republican while eschewing the teachings of Jesus.
Well, I’ve seen plenty of lines where Jesus “taught” that refusing to believe in his claim to divinity was completely unforgivable. Luke 14:26 makes clear that he will not tolerate being second best to anyone or anything in his disciples’ lives, including family members. Hell, the fruitcake even cursed a fig tree for not growing figs out of season (Um, Lord? What’s with the temper tantrum? Didn’t You design trees to be that way?) I think it’s obvious that his “teachings” are all over the moral map, so let’s quit pretending otherwise.
But getting back on topic – I thought the gay aspect of the JimJeff scandal was good for forcing a wedge into the Republicans, since we already know that the Christian nuts are expecting a little quid pro quo for all their support.
On the one hand, force Billy Biblethumper to choose between his mindless adulation of Dear Leader and his hatred of gays – he’s gotta be wondering about just how holy and pure this group is, being that they don’t seem too zealous about forcing the bible into schools, outlawing abortion, or shipping the gays off to Guantanamo, not to mention Cheney refusing to disown his lesbian daughter like Alan Keyes did. Plus, as you mentioned, there’s all those rumors about Mehlman, McClellan, Drier, etc., to set off the omnipresent paranoia: what if the evil homos have infiltrated Billy’s beloved GOP!?!?
On the other hand, force craven cowards like Bush and Cheney to take a stand – do they really, truly believe in all this homophobic bullshit? If not, what does it say about their “moral character” that they’re willing to exploit that kind of virulent hatred for political gain?
Seems like a win/win situaton to me.
Comment by sebastian — February 18, 2005 @ 10:59 am
But that’s why I brought up all the other outed Republicans. Gannon is the latest in a long line of outed conservatives, so who really gives a shit about that particular aspect at this point? If every other ex-gay politician isn’t enough to force a wedge, why should we expect the outing of a cog in the propaganda machine to make much of a difference. The prostitution allegations are a much bigger deal however…
The quid pro quo here is that as long as the guys they vote for give lip service to their issue du jour, then they can easily “hate the sin and love the sinner”. Here’s the thing that a lot of people on our side don’t realize. We see this as a fight in which conservatives are on the offense against homosexuals, but in their eyes, they’re on the defense, protecting traditional values from modernism and sin. Homophobic conservative Christians don’t care who’s gay as long as the gaywad considers abortion to be murder and doesn’t show up in their communities.
For that reason, as long as the Republican party stands strong against gay marriage, tries to make it illegal for gay people to be teachers, or whatever crazy shit they’re trying to pull this week, they could care less whether or not the people doing the political fighting for them like dudes.
Comment by greg — February 18, 2005 @ 11:25 am
For that reason, as long as the Republican party stands strong against gay marriage, tries to make it illegal for gay people to be teachers, or whatever crazy shit they’re trying to pull this week,
But that’s just it – I’ve been getting the impression (sorry, I don’t have anything more concrete than that) that a lot of the culture warriors are starting to get antsy, wondering when they’re going to get something more substantive than lip service and rhetorical handjobs.
I’ve made sure, in harping on this scandal to my Repub co-workers, to stress that I’ve seen several stories suggesting that neither Bush nor Cheney (and probably countless others) have anything against gays; that it’s just a cynical ploy for votes. That kind of obvious fakery is nauseating to anyone, and given the fundies’ obsession with ideological purity, I can’t help but think it has to gnaw at them deep down, wondering just how much their leaders are really on their side. As history seems to suggest is usually the case, if they start to feel frustrated with a perceived lack of progress, that same ideological purity will probably lead them to start turning on each other to root out the apostates that are betraying the cause.
That’s why I think it can’t hurt to tell the religious nuts on one hand: “Hey, your leaders are playing you for chumps; all those rich sons of privilege, who don’t really care about the gay issue, are laughing at all of you as backwards rubes and yahoos while counting on your vote”, and then tell the more secular Republicans: “Yeah, that’s some ‘character’ and ‘moral values’ for you; the gutless shits pander to the worst in human nature because they’re too cowardly to stand up for what they really feel is right. How can you have any faith in such obvious political chameleons?”
At some point, this has got to reach a breaking point with some of them. All these apparent closet-case Republicans. All these charlatans who sell you their books about “family values” and use the proceeds to go gamble in Vegas, buy drugs by the metric ton, and brag about trips to Italy and Bali where they plan to cheat on their wives. Hell, they don’t have to change their vote. I’d be happy if they just get disgusted with politics and stay home, muttering to themselves.
Comment by sebastian — February 18, 2005 @ 2:33 pm
Shit. I could’ve saved a lot of time and just linked to this post by Digby.
Comment by sebastian — February 18, 2005 @ 2:41 pm
Let’s be serious here. If they were really concerned about getting things done, they’d need to make a lot more changes than just who they vote for.
Comment by greg — February 18, 2005 @ 2:50 pm
Call me a liberal’s liberal or just plain naive, but Gannon bothers me because he had access to the president just based on his being a GOP activist. The fact that he is a perv with a military theme is just comical.
He got by security. I thought this was the security pres. I thought he got elected because he made us all feel safe. This makes me feel like someone’s been in my house while I’ve been gone.
Either he has had very close connections to the higher ups in the white house to get past the secret service, or this admin truly is incompetent on security matters.
Both possibilities scare the hell out of me.
Comment by cork — February 20, 2005 @ 10:44 pm
Greg has a point; there are dangers in reminding the Republican Reds of their homophobia. But the Reds need no reminding.
Of course there’s the hypocrisy angle. But by now I think the Reds consider hypocrisy to be a positive virtue; something to be proud of.
There’s also the humor angle. I mean, really; an _actual_ whore in the press corps; not just a metaphorical one! So far the whole thing’s a major hoot, and I for one could use the giggles.
In the end I say, let the truth be known. The Reds tell horrible lies; let us tell horrible truths.
Comment by Nathaniel Hellerstein — February 23, 2005 @ 10:28 am
Get a load of this; we now see that the Bushites are against gay marriage, but are for gay prostitution. Perhaps they should propose a Constitutional amendment legalizing the latter.
Comment by Nathaniel Hellerstein — February 23, 2005 @ 10:39 am