1
   

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

 
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Feb, 2005 01:26 pm
Dookie wrote:
What's also sad is you have no balls whatsoever to answer this simple question:

What do you think the intent is of a guy advertising as an escort who poses nude, boasts of being exclusively "top only," and tells you that he's looking for a "good time?"


What is sad is you have nothing better to do than to guess at their intent. Since there is nothing to be gained by making those kinds of guesses, I'll decline the invitation.
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Feb, 2005 01:30 pm
There is no guessing, Ticomaya. All we have is your incessant spinning that you are completely clueless, or have no computer search skills to find this out on your own. Apparently, you people in the middle of the heartland seem to lack the computer skills to do some sleuthing on your own.

Stay clueless. It seems to serve your purpose quite well.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Feb, 2005 08:47 pm
Ticomaya writes
Quote:
What is sad is you have nothing better to do than to guess at their intent. Since there is nothing to be gained by making those kinds of guesses, I'll decline the invitation.


Guessing?

There is little to guess about when the service lists a sexual position. "Top only" has a sexual meaning. It would be like an escort service listing "doggy style only". You can pretend all you want to that this particular service doesn't perform sex acts but when they LIST the ones they will perform it makes it obvious to anyone willing to actually look.

As for "intention".... If someone says that they will perform only certain sex acts in their advertisement it should be pretty clear that they do intend to perform them.
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Feb, 2005 09:07 pm
I'm thinking that out of all my time on A2K, this is the first thread I've participated in where someone said "doggy style only" and it's in Politics of all places! Laughing

I may be wrong... But, I don't think so.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Feb, 2005 10:07 pm
Nothing like taking a week off in order to get ya behind the conversation.

To those who have been following this story, it was on Hardball, Anderson Cooper, NBC News, and a whole bunch of written articles today. It is serious.

I'll write a lot more about it tommorrow, but here's just a rundown of the questions we have up to date:

How did an ex-escort (those of you playing games about what 'escort' means need to grow up) get admitted to the WH as a reporter, with no body of reporting experience and no news company to work for? Remember, Gannon has been around since before McLellan; here's a link to Ari Fleischer talking about how he (who was the press secretary, mind you) didn't know that Gannon was using a fake name:

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/02/whose-ass-is-ari-covering-now.html

How did said escort come to be a crutch for the administration, when questions got tough about the headlines? Was this concious, or not?

How was it that this 'reporter' was allowed into the press room of the WH with a psuedonym? I often have heard people discuss this issue and say 'plenty of people use psuedonyms,' but how many do in the WH? How many WH reporters have? Can anyone name one? Remember that Guckert was denied a capitol hill hard pass, b/c he couldn't show that he worked for a real news organization. Typcially this pass is the first step to obtaining a WH press pass; a step Guckert apparently skipped.

How was it that this reporter was let in daily for two years on a 'soft pass,' which is apparenlty not standard practice for the WH? More importantly, how was he cleared for a Presidential news conference; a once in a year event? We know that the president doesn't call on reporters by random in these events; hell, he doesn't even let random people into town hall meetings, let alone the WH!

How did an ex-male prostitute, with active websites advertising his services, obtain information pertaining to the Valerie Plame outing? Why would Jim Guckert be on the short list of reporters given access to this information, along with such senior insiders as Bob Novak and the two that work for the Times?

The administration has been pretty quiet on this one; and who can blame them? It's quite obvious that Jim Guckert was intentionally planted into the press room as a shill for the WH. But the whole escort angle really hurts the Pres. on the moral values issue, and the fact that this is the 4th reporter/media icon in the last month to turn out to have been paid or manipulated by the administration, it certainly sounds much more credible than one would normally think.

How did Guckert hide his background from the Secret Service, who reportedly told Maureen Dowd that a background check would take 'months?'

If he didn't, why did the SS allow him to enter? Why would they allow him to enter under an assumed name? Were they instructed to allow him? Who told them?

Ari Fleischer has stated that he didn't know that Guckert was using a fake name; therefore, it wasn't the head of the press office who let him in. McLellan has stated that he 'did' recently find out that Guckert was using a fake name. How recently?

Republicans will try to make this issue seem as if those who are attacking the WH are anti-gay, or searching into people's private lives, or just head-hunting for excuses. But none of that is true.

Why?

Because there's no problem that Guckert is gay (though it does provide quite the irony), only that he's a prostitute, which I don't have a huge problem with but I hardly think is a suitable background for access to the WH or questioning our CIC, thanks very much.

There's no searching into his private life. When you post a website on the internet, with naked photos of yourself, advertising as an escort, that's not private. That's public. And fair game, not to mention being pretty dumb.

This is a serious issue; it involves not only traditional morals, but deception and breaches of national security, not to mention blatant propaganda once again. The next step is to track the revenue stream of GOPUSA and Talon News; a step that is well underway, I assure you.

Cheers

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Feb, 2005 11:23 pm
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1093819/posts

Extremely interesting. An excerpt from the original article:

Quote:
WASHINGTON (Talon News) -- A federal grand jury has subpoenaed White House records on administration contacts with more than two dozen journalists and news media outlets in a special investigation into the alleged improper leak of a covert CIA official's identity to columnist Robert Novak last July.

Talon News has learned that one of the journalists being targeted is Jeff Gannon, Washington Bureau Chief and White House correspondent for Talon News.

...

At one point Gannon quotes a White House spokesman who said, "There are some people that are making unsubstantiated allegations and unsubstantiated rumors about the White House leaking classified information. And some of those people have been forced to back away from that, and then all of a sudden they move the goalpost and focus on another issue that's not the subject of the investigation."

In December of last year, Gannon reported on continuing pressure by Senate Democrats on the Justice Department to "pursue the investigation into the alleged leak of a CIA officer's identity earlier in the year." Gannon also identified Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) and Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee as the two prominent figures leading the push.

At the same time, the Washington Post claimed that "according to their sources, the Central Intelligence Agency believes people in the Bush administration are continuing to release classified information to damage figures at the center of the Niger 'yellowcake' controversy."

According to a subsequent Talon News story by Bobby Eberle regarding the Washington Post piece, "The Washington Post cites an unnamed source who says, 'The CIA is angry about the circulation of a still-classified document to conservative news outlets.' They point to a memo referenced in a Talon News interview of Wilson that suggests his wife was instrumental in his selection for the fact-finding trip to Africa."

Talon News was the only service identified by the Washington Post as having knowledge of the memo's existence.

"I will tell you that the information did not come from inside the administration," Gannon told Talon News. "For something that is supposed to be classified, it seems that this document is easily accessible."

Earlier this week, the Associated Press reported the subpoena of White House records on administration contacts with journalists and news media outlets that are targets in the special investigation.

Gannon declined to comment on whether federal investigators have contacted or interviewed him and said that he has yet to receive a subpoena. Gannon also noted that he has not been contacted by any other news agencies.

"I don't know why I'm on the list of journalists being called before the Grand Jury," Gannon told Talon News. "I have been an outspoken critic of the leak probe and an aggressive questioner of the motives behind it. That seems to have drawn the attention of someone with the authority to issue subpoenas."


Remember the 'housecleaning' in the CIA? Some people there were starting to catch on to what was happening... they had to go...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Feb, 2005 11:30 pm
Tico wrote:
Quote:
I don't know their intent, nor do you. End of point. Carry on.


That's right we don't know. And I don't know if there are yellow eyed green biters dancing on the tip of your . . . . . . . . um, your uh......your........ left pinky either, but I suspect there aren't.

I've never had so much fun in my life as I am watching you guys dance the jelly roll spin. Who smeared the dance floor with grease? Now all we need is a little salt and some more baloney. You are arguing for something that is indefensible. Give it up and earn some respect, will ya man?

Good night, Tico. You're ruining my faith in you.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Feb, 2005 07:33 am
Quote:
Looking back at the special role played by Talon and [Jeff] Gannon in the South Dakota Senate campaign may provide clues in the mystery of the male-escort-cum-journalist's extraordinary access to the Bush White House.

The cooperation between the Talon News writer and Daschle's Republican challenger dates back to the early weeks of the South Dakota campaign, when Thune showed up as a guest on "Jeff Gannon's Washington," the writer's Internet radio program on Rightalk.com. It might have seemed unusual for a Midwestern Senate candidate to show up on an Internet radio show in Washington, where he would reach almost no listeners in his home state. But Gannon didn't waste Thune's time. His friendly questioning allowed the Republican candidate to lay out the themes of his campaign to unseat the incumbent: Daschle was an obstructionist opponent of the president, out of touch with the home folks, and married to a rich pharmaceutical lobbyist.

On Feb. 8, 2004, Gannon's interview with Thune was the subject of an article in the Argus-Leader, and immediately got picked up by "DaschlevThune," a Web blog operated by history professor and Republican activist Jon Lauck, and South Dakota Politics.com, run by a lawyer named Jason Van Beek. Lauck promoted a series of Talon News articles by Gannon, which charged that Dave Kranz, the Argus-Leader's chief political correspondent, and a three-decade veteran reporter, was in essence nothing more than a hit man for Daschle.

While promoting Talon and Gannon as credible journalistic sources, Lauck's blog reprinted sensational paragraphs posted by Gannon on the Talon News Web site, urging readers to take special note of the Talon reporter's "quite interesting article" about Daschle's "Sopranos-style" tactics. The story contained no actual evidence of misconduct by either the Democratic senator or the Sioux Falls newspaperman, beyond anonymous quotes that accused them of Mafia-like intimidation of "small business owners" and other beleaguered anti-Daschle dissidents. (The "Sopranos" story, like all of Gannon's other works, has been scrubbed by Talon's Republican owners from their Web site.)

The bloggers promoted dozens of Talon News attacks on Daschle, under the false flag of journalistic independence. They proclaimed themselves the paladins of truth, battling against South Dakota's "liberal media." Nobody in South Dakota would know until months after Nov. 2, when Daschle was so narrowly defeated, that those "independent" bloggers dogging him had been subsidized by the Thune campaign. But there, on the final post-election filings, were the names Lauck and Van Beek, who had been paid $27,000 and $8,000, respectively.

And nobody in South Dakota could know, until now, the true identity and purpose of "Jeff Gannon" and his employers at Talon News.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2005/02/18/gannon/index.html
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Feb, 2005 08:08 am
squinney,

I contemplated lots of phrases both vague and more descriptive and finally decided on that as being descriptive without being too offensive.

I rejected one of my other choices because I didn't want this to turn into a long digression on why an escort service would cater to missionaries.

Of course I could be wrong and "top only" could mean that good ole Jeff only wanted to escort to places that required "top hats". But we can let Tico argue that one if he wants to.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Feb, 2005 08:12 am
It's interesting how homophobic the left really is. All those consternations about conservatives being homophobic when discussing homosexual marriage is merely a smoke screen apparently.

Verrrrry interesting...
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Feb, 2005 08:44 am
Blatham - I had contemplated that connection between Gannon/Talon and Daschles loss, but you know what? If Daschle and all of his staff wasn't able to do what a few bloggers did within a couple of weeks of going "what the heck kinda question was THAT?" then he doesn't deserve to be in DC.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Feb, 2005 09:15 am
Lola wrote:
Tico wrote:
Quote:
I don't know their intent, nor do you. End of point. Carry on.


That's right we don't know. And I don't know if there are yellow eyed green biters dancing on the tip of your . . . . . . . . um, your uh......your........ left pinky either, but I suspect there aren't.

I've never had so much fun in my life as I am watching you guys dance the jelly roll spin. Who smeared the dance floor with grease? Now all we need is a little salt and some more baloney. You are arguing for something that is indefensible. Give it up and earn some respect, will ya man?

Good night, Tico. You're ruining my faith in you.


You apparently don't know what I'm arguing. And, taking a page out of your book, I'm going to let you continue to guess at what my point is.

But for another hint ..... I'm not defending Guckert/Gannon. I don't care for the approach of some folks who like to assume facts not in evidence, and who like to make broad sweeping generalizations. Never have and likely never will. If Dookie thinks Guckert/Gannon was a prostitute, then he/she can make his case for that belief. I've no idea if he is/was or isn't/wasn't, nor do I much care, largely because I don't think it makes a tinker's damn bit of difference to anything. Dookie stated that "Escort = Prostitution" and that is an incorrect generalization which he is unwilling to back down from. If he wants to state his case for why he believes G/G is/was a prostitute, fine, but to say "he advertised as an escort, therefore he is a prostitute," is a logical leap of faith that is unsupported by any facts. Guess away, but don't claim to "know" what the hell you're talking about. Trying to keep you folks intellectually honest sure is challenging sometimes.

Buck up, Lola, I'm sure I'll provide many more opportunities for your faith in me to be ruined. Very Happy

blatham wrote:
Quote:
Looking back at the special role played by Talon and [Jeff] Gannon in the South Dakota Senate campaign may provide clues in the mystery of the male-escort-cum-journalist's extraordinary access to the Bush White House.

The cooperation between the Talon News writer and Daschle's Republican challenger dates back to the early weeks of the South Dakota campaign, when Thune showed up as a guest on "Jeff Gannon's Washington," the writer's Internet radio program on Rightalk.com. It might have seemed unusual for a Midwestern Senate candidate to show up on an Internet radio show in Washington, where he would reach almost no listeners in his home state. But Gannon didn't waste Thune's time. His friendly questioning allowed the Republican candidate to lay out the themes of his campaign to unseat the incumbent: Daschle was an obstructionist opponent of the president, out of touch with the home folks, and married to a rich pharmaceutical lobbyist.

On Feb. 8, 2004, Gannon's interview with Thune was the subject of an article in the Argus-Leader, and immediately got picked up by "DaschlevThune," a Web blog operated by history professor and Republican activist Jon Lauck, and South Dakota Politics.com, run by a lawyer named Jason Van Beek. Lauck promoted a series of Talon News articles by Gannon, which charged that Dave Kranz, the Argus-Leader's chief political correspondent, and a three-decade veteran reporter, was in essence nothing more than a hit man for Daschle.

While promoting Talon and Gannon as credible journalistic sources, Lauck's blog reprinted sensational paragraphs posted by Gannon on the Talon News Web site, urging readers to take special note of the Talon reporter's "quite interesting article" about Daschle's "Sopranos-style" tactics. The story contained no actual evidence of misconduct by either the Democratic senator or the Sioux Falls newspaperman, beyond anonymous quotes that accused them of Mafia-like intimidation of "small business owners" and other beleaguered anti-Daschle dissidents. (The "Sopranos" story, like all of Gannon's other works, has been scrubbed by Talon's Republican owners from their Web site.)

The bloggers promoted dozens of Talon News attacks on Daschle, under the false flag of journalistic independence. They proclaimed themselves the paladins of truth, battling against South Dakota's "liberal media." Nobody in South Dakota would know until months after Nov. 2, when Daschle was so narrowly defeated, that those "independent" bloggers dogging him had been subsidized by the Thune campaign. But there, on the final post-election filings, were the names Lauck and Van Beek, who had been paid $27,000 and $8,000, respectively.

And nobody in South Dakota could know, until now, the true identity and purpose of "Jeff Gannon" and his employers at Talon News.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2005/02/18/gannon/index.html


Are you just cutting and pasting without critical analysis, dear blatham. I thought that was taboo for you. And another salon.com article? I thought you were railing against getting all your news from one source, a biased one at that? I'm starting to lose faith in you, my man.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Feb, 2005 09:22 am
so what do we have here? well it seems that either the whitehouse staff knew and accepted that this guy is illegit (fake) or, on the other hand we have the option to select homeland security is limited to feeling up old ladies boarding planes to visit the grand children in Omaha.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Feb, 2005 09:32 am
I don't believe either of those options fit, Dys.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Feb, 2005 09:34 am
Me:
Quote:
Republicans will try to make this issue seem as if those who are attacking the WH are anti-gay, or searching into people's private lives, or just head-hunting for excuses. But none of that is true.

Why?

Because there's no problem that Guckert is gay (though it does provide quite the irony), only that he's a prostitute, which I don't have a huge problem with but I hardly think is a suitable background for access to the WH or questioning our CIC, thanks very much.


McGentrix wrote:
It's interesting how homophobic the left really is. All those consternations about conservatives being homophobic when discussing homosexual marriage is merely a smoke screen apparently.

Verrrrry interesting...


That didn't take long. Take your failed attempt at defending this guy elsewhere; noone on the left here is charging that the guy shouldn't have been let in b/c he's gay. Sheesh!

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Feb, 2005 09:40 am
McGentrix wrote:
I don't believe either of those options fit, Dys.

well ok mcg why don't you offer your explanations, that would put you ahead of the white house as they haven't offered any.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Feb, 2005 09:50 am
Tico said:
Quote:
But for another hint ..... I'm not defending Guckert/Gannon. I don't care for the approach of some folks who like to assume facts not in evidence, and who like to make broad sweeping generalizations


Look out Tico, I'm going to start calling you Frank any moment now.

And I join Dys in a call for rational non-back bending explanations for why Guckert (isn't that the most lovely name? Somehow it suits) was in the WH briefing room. Maybe someone in the WH has a taste for an escort-like man who" poses nude, boasts of being exclusively "top only," and tells you that he's looking for a 'good time?'" [thank you Dookie].

There's a possibility.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Feb, 2005 09:59 am
well, there's always the option that Laura finds him attractive. what say you?
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Feb, 2005 10:01 am
yikes I'm getting so far fetched here I might move on to defending the invasion of Iraq.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Feb, 2005 10:08 am
See Tico's post on next page... here
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 0.06 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 01:29:52