1
   

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

 
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Feb, 2005 09:43 am
PDiddie wrote:
I didn't see "gay male escorts" mentioned in there anywhere.

Because, see, it's not about that.


Why would it be about that?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Feb, 2005 10:03 am
The journalism vs planted shill issue is the important issue. But the Gannon as gay prostitute issue is going to be resonant because...
1) discrediting an individual for sexuality is not in the least unusual in American political strategy (eg Ken Starr) and
2) the White House/modern Republican campaign to divide through the gay issue.

It's a karma thing.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Feb, 2005 10:11 am
blatham wrote:
The journalism vs planted shill issue is the important issue. But the Gannon as gay prostitute issue is going to be resonant because...
1) discrediting an individual for sexuality is not in the least unusual in American political strategy (eg Ken Starr) and
2) the White House/modern Republican campaign to divide through the gay issue.

It's a karma thing.

I couldn't possibly agree more. Well and succinctly put, blatham.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Feb, 2005 10:16 am
blatham wrote:
The journalism vs planted shill issue is the important issue. But the Gannon as gay prostitute issue is going to be resonant because...
1) discrediting an individual for sexuality is not in the least unusual in American political strategy (eg Ken Starr) and
2) the White House/modern Republican campaign to divide through the gay issue.

It's a karma thing.


Seems to me it's another hypocrisy thing. (Is this going to be another one of your "goose/gander" rationales?)

If we're talking about a "journalist," how does the fact that he/she might be gay relate to "American political strategy"? We've had this discussion about sexuality and its relevance to the topic at hand. ... Please advise in what particular way Mr. Guckert/Gannon's sexuality is relevant.


Oh, and thanks for another salon.com link. <adds to the scorecard>
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Feb, 2005 11:56 am
Ticomaya wrote:
...If we're talking about a "journalist," how does the fact that he/she might be gay relate to "American political strategy"? We've had this discussion about sexuality and its relevance to the topic at hand. ... Please advise in what particular way Mr. Guckert/Gannon's sexuality is relevant.


That question was answered above. However, in addition, it appears he lied to Blitzer in claiming the escort sites were for a "client" and were never active. So now we have a lying fake journalist in the White House lobbing softball questions, obtaining access to classified documents and propogandizing to the same religious right / moral family values people that re-elected Bush.

Article reveals this and links to sites. Links may have material offensive to some:
http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/02/man-called-jeff.html ]

Get it?
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Feb, 2005 12:10 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
If we're talking about a "journalist," how does the fact that he/she might be gay relate to "American political strategy"? We've had this discussion about sexuality and its relevance to the topic at hand. ... Please advise in what particular way Mr. Guckert/Gannon's sexuality is relevant.


Fair question. Why does it matter? I'll sample from John's post squinney links above the questions that should help Tico get it (with my emphasis in bold):

Quote:
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 managed got a job lobbing softball questions to the White House. Big deal. If he was already a prostitute, why not be one in the White House briefing room as well?

This is the Conservative Republican Bush White House we're talking about. It's looking increasingly like they made a decision to allow a hooker to ask the President of the United States questions. They made a decision to give a man with an alias and no journalistic experience access to the West Wing of the White House on a "daily basis." They reportedly made a decision to give him -- one of only six -- access to documents, or information in those documents, that exposed a clandestine CIA operative. Say what you will about Monica Lewinsky -- a tasteless episode, "inappropriate," whatever. She wasn't a prostitute running around the West Wing. What kind of leadership would let prostitutes roam the halls of the West Wing? What kind of war-time leadership can't find the same information that took bloggers only days to find?

None of this is by accident.

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 made that decision?

Ultimately, it is the hypocrisy that is such a challenge to grasp in this story. This is the same White House that ran for office on a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. While they are surrounded by gay hookers. While they use a gay hooker to write articles for their gay hating political base. While they use a gay hooker to destroy a political enemy. Not to mention the hypocrisy of a "reporter" who chooses to publish article after article defending the ant-gay religious-right point of view on gay civil rights issues.

Who in the White House is at the center of all of this? Who allowed this to go on in the People's House? Who committed the crime of exposing Valerie Plame?

Jeff Gannon has the answers to these questions, and boy, we know he loves to talk.

Let him talk to Patrick Fitzgerald.


I personally have no problems with the Bush White House needing to blow off some consensual adult steam. It's a stressful job. If gay hookers are going to help them relax then who am I to argue? I'm a liberal. I have nothing against gays or hookers.

But if the shoe was on the other foot, if this were 1998, we'd be knee-deep in congressional investigations into the gay hooker ring in the White House. Every news crew in the DC area would be camped out on Gannon's front lawn.

But, it isn't 1998 and so it will probably not be mentioned much by the liberal media after this week.
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Feb, 2005 06:12 pm
Jeff Gannon has now decided not to interview with any news organizations. If he has nothing to hide, then why run away like a coward and not address all of these allegations?

And his sexuality is AMAZINGLY important, as this idiot "conservative" has spewed Limbaugh's talking points at these White House press conferences, condemned the gay lifestyle, and yet poses nude himself in order to solicit sex.

And people like Ticomaya think it's not important?

God damn that's hysterical!!

Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Feb, 2005 06:12 pm
Jeff Gannon has now decided not to interview with any news organizations. If he has nothing to hide, then why run away like a coward and not address all of these allegations?

And his sexuality is AMAZINGLY important, as this idiot "conservative" has spewed Limbaugh's talking points at these White House press conferences, condemned the gay lifestyle, and yet poses nude himself in order to solicit sex from men.

And people like Ticomaya think it's not important?

God damn that's hysterical!!

Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Feb, 2005 05:22 am
MoDo turns up her contempto-ray to "kill":

Quote:
I am very impressed with James Guckert, a k a Jeff Gannon.

How often does an enterprising young man, heralded in press reports as both a reporter and a contributor to such sites as Hotmilitarystud.com, Workingboys.net, Militaryescorts .com, MilitaryescortsM4M.com and Meetlocalmen.com, get to question the president of the United States?

Who knew that a hotmilitarystud wanting to meetlocalmen could so easily get to be face2face with the commander in chief?


She raises questions I'd like answered about how one gets a White House press pass:

Quote:
I'm still mystified by this story. I was rejected for a White House press pass at the start of the Bush administration, but someone with an alias, a tax evasion problem and Internet pictures where he posed like the "Barberini Faun" is credentialed to cover a White House that won a second term by mining homophobia and preaching family values?

At first when I tried to complain about not getting my pass renewed, even though I'd been covering presidents and first ladies since 1986, no one called me back. Finally, when Mr. McClellan replaced Ari Fleischer, he said he'd renew the pass - after a new Secret Service background check that would last several months.

In an era when security concerns are paramount, what kind of Secret Service background check did James Guckert get so he could saunter into the West Wing every day under an assumed name while he was doing full-frontal advertising for stud services for $1,200 a weekend? He used a driver's license that said James Guckert to get into the White House, then, once inside, switched to his alter ego, asking questions as Jeff Gannon.


...and the coup de grace:

Quote:
They flipped TV's in the West Wing and Air Force One to Fox News. They paid conservative columnists handsomely to promote administration programs. Federal agencies distributed packaged "news" video releases with faux anchors so local news outlets would run them. As CNN reported, the Pentagon produces Web sites with "news" articles intended to influence opinion abroad and at home, but you have to look hard for the disclaimer: "Sponsored by the U.S. Department of Defense." The agencies spent a whopping $88 million spinning reality in 2004, splurging on P.R. contracts.

Even the Nixon White House didn't do anything this creepy. It's worse than hating the press. It's an attempt to reinvent it.


Someone in the White House let Gannon/Guckert happen. For two years.

At significant risk to themselves personally, someone approved of a gay prostitute pretending to be a journalist, using an alias, sitting in the White House press room long enough to be called on by the President.

Why? Were they involved in a sexual relationship with Gannon? Were they arranging liasons with Gannon for others?

There's no way this was an accident. Who's responsible for this lapse in security, this error in judgment? Will they be fired?

What about the people responsible for background checks? As MoDo says, after Bernard Kerik, you'd think this couldn't have happened again. (Actually, this little charade was going on long before Kerik was under consideration.)

Leave the sexual element aside. How could something like this happen without someone -- some one pretty high up in the White House -- knowing, and approving?
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Feb, 2005 08:19 am
Let's not forget that prostitution / solicitation is illegal!

Let's not forget that he claims on his sites to be USMC.

Let's not forget that Sodomy/ Homosexual acts are illegal in the U.S. Marine Corps, whether the service member is male or female, active duty or reservist.

Let's not forget that Pimping/Pandering is felony in every state plus the District of Columbia.

Let's not forget that unauthorized use of marine corps imagery to bring discredit to the service is punishable. If Gannon really did serve in the military, he is likely still in the ready reserve. He should be called up immediately and shipped to a combat zone.



(I'd love to step up behind McClellan and whisper "Bulldog" in his ear just to see if he goes weak in the knees.)
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Feb, 2005 09:04 am
I certainly would.
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Feb, 2005 09:24 am
Go weak in the knees?

LOL! Yeah, me too, but I was thinking more of the anticipatory shiver down the spine kinda weak in the knees for Scott.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Feb, 2005 09:37 am
So, who here has used Gannon/Guckerts services?

Do you suppose that things on the INternet are sometimes simply money making ventures? Is it possible that this Guckert fella simply had a website as described to make some money?

So far, there have been a lot of claims and no substance.

Typical rhetoric from the homophobic left.
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Feb, 2005 09:47 am
Duh! Of course it was a money making venture. That's what makes it illegal!
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Feb, 2005 09:51 am
squinney wrote:
Duh! Of course it was a money making venture. That's what makes it illegal!


Having a porn site? That's not illegal.
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Feb, 2005 09:51 am
Oh, that crazy Mr. Guckert. So full of surprises!

http://movies.ziaspace.com/The%20Daily%20Show%20Gannon.wmv
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Feb, 2005 09:52 am
Here's a thought:

The republicans know exactly who to allow to fly, and who not.

The republicans know exactly who to allow or not allow into every presidential event around the whole country.

The republicans know which real journalists to not allow into the White House press room...

But, they didn't know any of this about Guckert/Gannon?

Right!
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Feb, 2005 10:01 am
Quote:
Having a porn site? That's not illegal.


But soliciting sex IS, McGentrix. It's called Prostitution.
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Feb, 2005 10:04 am
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/17/opinion/17dowd.html?oref=login

Quote:
a Web designer in California said "that he had designed a gay escort site for Gannon and had posted naked pictures of Gannon at the client's request."


Escort = Prostitution.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Feb, 2005 10:08 am
Oh please. Get your panties in a twist over something that actually matters. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 10:13:30