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

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

I didn't see "gay male escorts" mentioned in there anywhere.

Because, see, it's not about that.

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.

I couldn't possibly agree more. Well and succinctly put, blatham.

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!!

Lets discuss whether any "gay escort" services actually provided non sexual escorts for the Black Tie and Boot Ball.

Apparently, Presidential BJ's are a big deal with neoconservatives (what with national security and blackmail and all), but fake, gay, pornographic journalists who get to ask softball questions are no big deal whatsoever.

Lifting the heavy Puritan curtain draping Bush's Washington reveals enlightening scenes of its decadent anthropology. Even as Guckert's true colors were revealed, the administration issued orders that the words "gay," "lesbian," "bisexual" and "transgender" be removed from the program of a federally funded conference on suicide prevention. But the transparent hypocrisy of conservative "values" hardly deters a ruthless government.

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?

There seems to be an awful lot of noise being made on the left side of this BB because he's "gay."

sounds likely to me

Many Fundamentalists are mightly pissed about this issue.

Quote:

There seems to be an awful lot of noise being made on the left side of this BB because he's "gay."

It's not about him being gay.....it's about the hypocricy of the WH. But you just keep repeating that it's about that other thing and pretty soon, it will be true.......wagging the doggy.

We're not afraid of calling someone gay who is gay. Our stating that he's a gay prostitute isn't an attack on his sexuality, but his profession. It seems to me that conservatives are the ones who have a problem with gays, IIRC.

Far right blows a gasket over Gannon
by John in DC - 2/18/2005 11:02:00 AM

Two weeks of silence from the far right has finally exploded like Vesuvius. This comes from CNS, the Cybercast News Service - basically, another pro-far-right "media" outlet:

Make no mistake, Jeff Gannon, or James Guckert, or whatever his name is, is no conservative. Anybody who publishes sexually explicit photos of himself on a website in hopes of making money as a hooker is no conservative. Not in this lifetime. Not on this planet. The person in those photos is a pig and a pervert.

But Gannon did rile up the Left, and it's because they felt betrayed, certain that the only reliable, no-questions-asked, no-strings-attached home for such individuals is in the liberal wing of the establishment media or Democratic Party.

The Left wants this controversy to be about a Republican White House letting in a ringer to ask questions and get access to sensitive information so he could write up favorable stories on the Talon News website. But if Jeff Gannon was a heterosexual, I suspect his questions for the president would have drawn scant attention. He wouldn't have made many friends in the White House press room, but almost nobody would have cared.

Homosexuality, at its core, is about narcissism and self-loathing. But the Left is demonstrating another of its common characteristics in the Gannon flap - denial. They want the world to believe that exposing Gannon's journalistic bona fides, or lack thereof, is their ethical responsibility.

But don't be fooled. The Jeff Gannon controversy is about sex and turning the political tables on Left Wing ideologues he should have known would seek revenge and personal destruction. It's nothing more than that.


Yeah, because obviously CNS has true love in its heart for Jeff.

It's really not worth responding to a "defense" of Gannon that also calls him a "pig and a pervert." Even we horrible leftwing bloggers didn't go that far. But I will say one thing. No one knew he was gay. David Brock launched this story out of concern over Gannon being a fake journalist. We didn't have a clue he was gay - not a bit of my gaydar went off when I saw him on TV. So spare us the "were he heterosexual it wouldn't be an issue" crap. Were Gannon a heterosexual hooker the mainstream media would have reported on this days ago. And were Gannon a heterosexual hooker in the Clinton White House, CNS would have been the first media outlet to report on it. So spare me.

Finally, this article should send a message to Gannon and other closeted Republicans. You're working for and with people who hate you. We might be pissed because you're selling yourself out. They're pissed because they loathe who you are. Big difference.

If MJ was sneaking into a KKK rally, your analogy might be a little better.

You see? You're not the first person to try this lame duck attack.

But it fails, because the original investigation into Guckert came b/c of his incredibly biased question at a news conference, before anyone even knew he was gay.

So stuff it, and come up with a better defense.

I think this is true because the "fake journalist" story just didn't have any legs

"

Quote:

I think this is true because the "fake journalist" story just didn't have any legs

"
really? and the issue of whitehouse "security" is probably not an issue either.

Again, and I hope this to be the last time I will need to state this, if the focus of you lefties was that he was a "fake" journalist, fine. Make your case. But you expanded it when it was discovered that he is gay. Now your focus is that he's gay (I should say it's the focus of many, not all), and not that he's a "fake" journalist. I think this is true because the "fake journalist" story just didn't have any legs, and you weren't getting enough mileage out of it.

well no Lola it was never the legs. Actually it was the tattoo that did me in. I amy not be easy but I am cheap. (you, on the other hand)