Jeff Gannon, Jim Guckert, and... Prostitution?

Where is it stated ANYWHERE that formal education is a prerequisite to be a journalist, as it is for law, medicine, and other professions?

Whether Gannon, whose real name is James D. Guckert, was a White House "plant'' may never be known because officials in the Bush administration have taken great pains to distance themselves from the controversy. But passive denials only increase the lack of credibility to explanations of how the White House credentialed Guckert, even though he was representing a pseudo-news operation, using an alias and was linked to X-rated Web sites....

It's hard to say which is worse: That the White House had no idea who it was allowing to be within shouting distance of the president -- or that it knew exactly who Jeff Gannon was and why he was there.

Finally, Luntz advises, 9/11 is the perfect way to dodge responsibility for sinking the country in red ink. In a section headed "Without the context of 9-11, you will be blamed for the deficit," he points out "supporters are inherently turned off to the idea of fiscal irresponsibility." The best way to counter that fact? "The trick then is to contextualize the deficit inside of 9/11."

In his memo on how to manipulate American perception on the economy, right-wing spinmeister Frank Luntz advises conservatives to "resist the temptation' to use facts and figures about the economy. (You know, all those pesky statistics about lower wages, unemployment, skyrocketing deficits, etc.) Instead, he advises, you can't go wrong if you continuosly remind people about the terrorist attacks of 9/11. "This is the context that explains and justifies why we have $500 billion deficits, why the stock market tanked, why unemployment climbed to 6%."

Oh, yes, he advises preying on the emotions tied to the terrorist attacks to distract Americans from the truth about the economy, writing, "Much of the public anger can be immediately pacified if they are reminded that we would not be in this situation today if 9/11 had not happened." It's also an easy way to get President Bush off the hook: Luntz points out that convincing people that the struggling economy is a consequence of 9/11 (as opposed to, say, Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy) will convince people "it is unfair to blame the current political leadership"

Finally, Luntz advises, 9/11 is the perfect way to dodge responsibility for sinking the country in red ink. In a section headed "Without the context of 9-11, you will be blamed for the deficit," he points out "supporters are inherently turned off to the idea of fiscal irresponsibility." The best way to counter that fact? "The trick then is to contextualize the deficit inside of 9/11."

"Without the context of 9-11, you will be blamed for the deficit,"

Do you deny that this article clearly shows how the Republicans are instructed to bring it up at every opportunity in order to deflect criticism?

I mean, it clearly states JUST THAT. Do you deny it?

Cycloptichorn

We've all read PLENTY of Luntz' information to know where this moron is coming from. Using 9/11 to distract the American people from Bush's massive failings is disgusting mearly on the surface. Using 9/11 to further fool the American people is, IMO, a clear example of Bush continuously wagging the dog.

But I would imagine that torture is o.k. to you, McGentrix.

The adults are talking now...

Quote:

The adults are talking now...

that would be a welcome change but I don't see much possibility of it happening.