« Questions on Social Security | Main | Blogging note »

Not that there's anything wrong with that

Jeff Gannon's treatment at the hands of some lefty bloggers is now well beyond disgusting. Rather than sticking to the legitimate issues of his qualifications and credentials and the White House's knowledge thereof, many bloggers have seen fit to delve into the salacious details of Gannon's private life as a gay hooker.

Of course they're always careful to follow it up with a quick "Not that there's anything wrong with that! Heavens no; we hate to even bring it up, and the only reason we do is to point out Bush's hypocrisy, and besides, they did it to Clinton, and..."

Look, here's a tip. If you feel compelled to explain why what you're doing isn't gay baiting, that's probably a red flag. But all's fair in love and Bush-hatred, I guess. Anything, anything at all you can find to throw at this president in hopes of damaging him is fair game.

But let me ask you guys this: Do you really believe these details are inflicting enough damage on Bush to justify the jettisoning of the principles on which you (rightly) stood during Clinton's impeachment? I don't. In fact, I see yet another conservative scandal being transformed into a liberal scandal by overreaching.

What can we expect next? Maybe an exposé from DailyKos on how George and Laura adopted a "colored" baby? Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course.

UPDATE: Jeff's take on this is worth a read.


I don't know why they're going that route; there's plenty to wonder about in his speedy receipt of the press pass considering the fact that he couldn't pass the security requirements to get a Capitol Hill pass. How in the world does that happen? I suppose it's base human nature to wallow in the mud. And, well, the whole story together is like some soap opera writer's musings on crack. Insane.

What can be said?
The supposed "right" of the blogosphere (mostly made up, it seems to me, of moderates and libertarians, but that's another matter) feel that people who are in charge of keeping us informed should be held accountable for what they say and what they do--so long as it relates to their position in the media.

Whereas the left is doing what it is has shown its only talent to be ever since Bush stepped into office--crucifying anyone with a past.
Bush had drinking problems at one point in his life? He can't be president! Even if he claims to have "quit", and there's no reason to believe that his problem is ongoing, having a problem once, at any point in one's life, means that you can't do anything in the public ever.

Unless you voted for Gore and Kerry, of course. Oh, ok, and maybe Nader--but we're watching you if you did, just in case.

You right-wing folks are such hypocrites! You guys are the ones going on and on about how gays and lesbians are a destroying the fabric of our society. That is until they are one of your own. Then it hey what is the big deal!

The real problem here is the right-wings love of money and willingness to fuel your insatible greed. You guys are destroying our country, and trying to tell us that all is going well... We shall see

Okay, thanks for that little tidbit of "objectivity," lol.

BTW, you obviously know very little about this site if you associate me with those ugly sentiments about homosexuality. This site has been a proud support of gay rights since Day Fucking One.

I've no doubt that you can find hypocrites on this subject, but you will have to look elsewhere for them, not here.

PS -- I do love money, though. Ya got me there. ;-)

I am a good Christian and a Republican and I kinda agree with you but it still bugs me that our President let this gay prostitute/pimp in OUR White House. I voted for Bush because I don't like to think about gays and what they do and I thought Bush felt the same way. Many of us good Christians feel betrayed. Will the President please explain how this happened and apologize to all us rightous people.

You guys rock,

Barry, what you don't understand is that no one on the left gives a rat's ass about Gannonguckert's private life. In fact, we don't even care that he's a prostitute.

John Aravosis (who is, I think, who you're referring to), is a gay man, and if he wants to expose hypocrisy among closeted gays who support policies to discriminate against gays, by me that falls under the "it's OK to knock your own team" rule.

But I think it's hilarious that people on the right are all of a sudden so in love with gays that they're coming to this guy's defense, and regarding prostitution, which is a crime in D.C., as a simple matter of his private life -- at the same time as they fully support Republican efforts to legislate what THEY regard as "moral values" for everyone who isn't a shill for them.

This guy has shown up in C-SPAN video from a press conference from weeks before Talon "News" even existed. Why? How? Even he admits that he wasn't "working in journalism" prior to Talon News. So what was he doing in the White House Briefing room? THIS is what we want to know. How did he cover the White House for two years on day passes, bypassing the required FBI background checks that everyone else in that room had to submit to? Didn't Scott McClellan KNOW he didn't have clearance? Did he even CARE, as long as Gannonguckert was such a good shill? Gannonguckert has boasted of seeing the Plame memo. How did a guy with no clearance get hold of classified information?

You've got to admit, Barry, something stinks to high heaven here. How far up in the White House it goes is anyone's guess. But I know you've got more of a brain in your head than to chalk this up to "The Left Hates Gays." Unless you're so bound and determined to find no fault with this Administration that you're willing to park your brain at the door.

For the left not to give a shit about Gannon's sex life, they sure do write about it a lot. With pictures, no less.

I want the same answers you do, but the relevant questions are being obscured by this tawdry little side show.

I agree. And if it were me, or someone else STRAIGHT doing the whole mess with pictures, I'd be inclined to agree with you on that front too. But if Aravosis hadn't put up the pictures, everyone would say he was full of sh*t. The only alternative was to put up the actual links to the sites ONLY, and many people would not have wanted to go to those links. So for a gay activist to make his point by posting some judiciously-chosen photos that are PUBLICLY AVAILABLE ON THE WEB, well, I don't have a problem with that.

It is hilarious, though, to watch the right suddenly regard prostitution as "private behavior." Especially when John Ashcroft was so involved in going after New Orleans hookers, medical marijuana users, and pornography in the months prior to 9/11 that he couldn't be bothered with the 19 guys who were planning to hijack planes.

Oh, there's certainly no "privacy" issue here, from a legal standpoint. That's just crap. The pictures were fair game, I'm just not sure the wisdom behind disseminating them (heh) this way. Ah well, we shall see.

It ain't no side show when he put it all out there on the web as gay bait. Prostitution is illegal and he owes back taxes and he ain't no journalist but he gets into the White House. Don't those guys do background checks? I just want' to know what the Pres. knew and when he knew it. Oh, and now we're told Scotty Mclellan is gay or bi too. It's too much for a Christian to bear.

I wonder just how far this is going to have to spread before the Bush apologists stop defending the Administration.

You have to wonder: Why was THIS particular guy given such special access? Did no one know what he was? And if they didn't, why not? You'd think that if they were going to put a plant in the White House Briefing Room, they'd get one who was unimpeachable (heh) on anything but being a conservative.

You just have to wonder who Gannonguckert is f***ing at the White House...and how important that person is. Gannonguckert seems to know an awful lot of stuff before the general public does.

Post a comment