Has The White House and Texas Republican Party Lied About Ties To Jeff Gannon And Why - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

host · 02-25-2005, 02:22 AM

It is not my normal practice to link a thread starter to referenced websites that may cause the focus of my subject to be obscured by reaction to the links that I provide. The reason I deviate here is because the most prominent media is not yet providing "in depth" coverage of this story.

This coverage is well documented. The White House and Republican Party spokespersons statements on the record, "stink". The story is complicated but I believe that it has the potential to be a top political story of 2005. I want to believe that press coverage is lacking so far, because it is complicated. I present this because, if you follow politics, you should research what is on the record, so far, and draw your own conclusions.

Do you think that Gannon/Guckert has ties to Karl Rove and that the White House
and the Republican officials in Texas, South Dakota, and in the RNC are engaged in a "cover up", or that little more will come of all this and it's a case of the White House press office being too lax in checking the backgrounds of those that it issues daily press passes to. How about the matter of Guckert using an alias in the pressroom, and both Scott McClennan and Bush calling on Guckert by his alias name to ask questions during widely broadcast telecasts ?

In the unabridged version of the well documented Gannon/Gucket news coverage linked in the second quote box below, are the following two observations. Where the fuck is the "liberal media" coverage of this story ?

Quote:

Well, The Nashua Advocate is consistently amazed to see plumbers, doctors, lawyers, electricians, and stay-at-home mothers and fathers spending more time investigating important news stories than the folks who are paid damn good money to do so..........

..............Candidly, sir, only in the present media and political climate could a White House news correspondent be a featured speaker at a G.O.P. convention, and his boss be inviting to said convention members of an Administration which would later deny knowing him, and a state G.O.P. which had given him awards also deny knowing him, without anyone writing about it or thinking it a major news story. Especially when the RPT has been caught in a lie, Gannon has admitted coordination with the Thune campaign, and nobody can for the life of them figure out why all this man's news articles--hundreds of them--have been erased from the internet.

Quote:

<a href="http://nashuaadvocate.blogspot.com/2005/02/bush-administration-and-texas.html">http://nashuaadvocate.blogspot.com/2005/02/bush-administration-and-texas.html</a>
News From The U.S. Election Reform Movement
Thursday, February 24, 2005
Bush Administration and Texas Republican Party Appear to Have Lied About Ties to Jeff Gannon's Boss, Bobby Eberle; In Other News, Old Media Is Dead

By ADVOCATE STAFF [EDITOR'S NOTE: The really juicy bits are deep in the article, but we'd like to think the whole thing is worth it]. The less you know about Gannongate, the easier it is to write about it. Makes sense, doesn't it? If you haven't done the necessary <a href="http://nashuaadvocate.blogspot.com/2005/02/former-daschle-campaign-spokesman-says.html">research</a>, Gannongate can appear to be nothing more than a case of sloppy journalism with an attendant, but ultimately irrelevant dabbling into the personal affairs of a White House reporter--which, while occasionally interesting, was in the end (this particularly odious theory goes) not entirely newsworthy. Of course, if you have done the necessary research, then writing an article like <a href="http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=2219">this one</a> by David Corn would be, ironically, a true exemplar of <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/">sloppy journalism</a>. So, how it is that The Nation's Corn can openly wonder if Gannongate is "smaller than it seems," while Salon <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/02/23/more_gannon/index_np.html">declares</a> it's "worse than you think?" Two reasons. The first, of course, is the laziness of the print media. But we've already said enough on that topic. The second, and more vital reason, is the laziness of the print media. [We exclude Minnesota's Nick Coleman, of whom we are a newly-minted fan, and a few other notable journalists from this broad brushstroke. But what would rhetoric be without a little hyperbole?]. .........................................................Our research has focused on whether a White House news correspondent <a href="http://nashuaadvocate.blogspot.com/2005/02/former-thune-staffer-jon-lauck-speaks.html">shared opposition research</a> with staff of U.S. Senator John Thune (R-SD) in a purposeful attempt to discredit a sitting Democratic Senate Minority Leader (Daschle); whether a White House news correspondent <a href="http://nashuaadvocate.blogspot.com/2005/02/former-daschle-campaign-spokesman-says.html">lied about his identity</a> to the Daschle campaign in order to get information which would or could be used to discredit them; and whether a White House news correspondent <a href="http://nashuaadvocate.blogspot.com/2005/02/credible-evidence-emerges-that-jeff.html">synchronized his news stories</a> in order to have them coincide with the partisan activities of the Thune campaign. Thus far, all three of these theories/propositions have proven true: the first, Gannon has admitted to the news outlet Editor & Publisher within just the last 72 hours; the second, The Nashua Advocate confirmed with the spokesman for the Daschle campaign; the third, former Thune staffer and current Professor at South Dakota State University, Jon Lauck, has admitted on his publicly-accessible blog. The Advocate has also provided additional evidence of this synchronicity on its <a href="http://nashuaadvocate.blogspot.com/2005/02/credible-evidence-emerges-that-jeff.html">website</a>. You may also be aware that all of the parties involved in this scandal have thus far denied the allegations against them or else <a href="http://nashuaadvocate.blogspot.com/2005/02/quotes-from-ongoing-jeff-gannon-saga.html">refused to speak</a> to reporters, with the exception of Gannon (as I've noted above) who frankly seems to admit more and more every time he speaks to the press. Now he's saying he kept a diary, a piece of evidence at least two Members of Congress have asked the Special Prosecutor for the Valerie Plame investigation to subpoena. But as to the denials: I'm sure you've found in your own career (and I certainly have in mine) that when people deny facts which are easily proven, something is amiss. The Republican Party of Texas (RPT), through its spokeswoman Sherry Sylvester, told The Houston Chronicle that no one at the RPT knows Bobby Eberle, the owner of GOPUSA. With all due respect to the RPT, that that statement <a href="http://nashuaadvocate.blogspot.com/2005/02/gop-spokeswoman-may-have-lied-in.html">is a lie</a> has now been confirmed several times over. Not only was Eberle one of a few dozen Texas Delegates (from the RPT) to the 2000 Republican National Convention, he was awarded the distinction of being one of the RPT's "Volunteers of the Year" in 2000. He was also on the 2000 RPT Convention Host Committee. Plus he was an RPT Convention Delegate in 1996, 1998, 2000, and 2002. Plus his GOPUSA co-founder is the Chairman of the Williamson County [TX] G.O.P. Simply put, Eberle is a major player in the RPT and yet they have denied knowing who he is. As you may know, Talon News announced yesterday that it is ceasing operations. It had already inexplicably wiped all of Gannon's articles from its website; GOPUSA has done the same on its website. Jeff Gannon has also, again inexplicably, done the same on his own website--even though, in published interviews, he adamantly stands by his articles. So why scrub them? Moreover, Bobby Eberle has now told <a href="http://nashuaadvocate.blogspot.com/2005/02/gop-spokeswoman-may-have-lied-in.html">The New York Times</a>, "Jeff did his thing, I did mine." Which is a distancing between editor and reporter that I also think is worthy of note by the media. The President (through Scott McClellan) has denied knowing Gannon or Eberle. McClellan and former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer have <a href="http://nashuaadvocate.blogspot.com/2005/02/quotes-from-ongoing-jeff-gannon-saga.html">strongly implied</a> they do not know Eberle [or GOPUSA.com]. The problem here, of course, is that Eberle worked for the Bush-Cheney 2000 campaign in Washington state, was a Presidential Elector and Delegate (as mentioned above) from Bush's home state during the 2000 RNC Convention, and, as we've recently discovered, convened a "GOPUSA Conservative Conference" in Washington, D.C. in both 2003 and 2004, which conventions, run by Eberle, drew the attendance and indeed participation of such Administration and G.O.P. officials as: Senator John Cornyn (R-TX); Chuck DeFeo, eCampaign Manager, Bush-Cheney 2004; Tim Goeglein, Director, White House Office of Public Liaison; Rep. Tom Tancred (R-CO); Raul Damas, Hispanic Outreach Coordinator, Republican National Committee; Patrick Davis, Political Director, National Republican Senatorial Committee; Phillip Stutts, National Director, 72-Hour Task Force, Republican National Committee; and, of course, "Jeff Gannon," "reporter" for "Talon News." Candidly, sir, only in the present media and political climate could a White House news correspondent be a featured speaker at a G.O.P. convention, and his boss be inviting to said convention members of an Administration which would later deny knowing him, and a state G.O.P. which had given him awards also deny knowing him, without anyone writing about it or thinking it a major news story. Especially when the RPT has been caught in a lie, Gannon has admitted coordination with the Thune campaign, and nobody can for the life of them figure out why all this man's news articles--hundreds of them--have been erased from the internet. [Sigh]. We're not certain we can expect a response to that one. McClellan and Fleischer have <a href="http://nashuaadvocate.blogspot.com/2005/02/quotes-from-ongoing-jeff-gannon-saga.html">made clear</a> that their phone call to GOPUSA.com in 2003 was to confirm the "existence" of Bobby Eberle's website--yes, you read correctly, the "existence" of the website was the only sign of legitimacy required by the White House Press Office in order to usher Jeff Gannon into the White House--yet the fact that Eberle successfully invited the Bush-Cheney 2004 On-Line National Campaign Manager to a <a href="http://ari.typepad.com/right/2003/09/gopusa_conserva.html">conference</a> titled the "GOPUSA Conservative Conference" seems to imply, I don't know, some connection with the Administration? Maybe we're mistaken. Maybe members of the U.S. Senate, Republican National Committee, and National Republican Senatorial Committee went to Eberle's 2003 and <a href="https://www.gopusa.com/conference/">2004</a> GOPUSA convention because they thought it was being hosted by, say, the tobacco lobby? So, the RPT lied. They said they didn't know Eberle, and he's an award-winning, committee-hosting, honor-of-being-delegate-to-national-convention-receiving prized member of the Party. [The Advocate successfully contacted Ms. Sylvester on Wednesday, and asked her how she could deny knowing who Eberle is, given that the man is currently featured in not one but two Republican Party of Texas <a href="http://www.texasgop.org/newsroom/newsDisplay.php?id=112">press releases</a>. Sylvester told an Advocate reporter, "You know, I really want to talk to you, but I'm trying to get into this parking garage. Can I call you back on the number that came up on my cell phone?" We never heard back from her]. So, the Leadership Institute, which gave Gannon a "degree" for $50, lied. They claim on their <a href="http://www.leadershipinstitute.org/index_flash.cfm">website</a> to be non-partisan, but the most high-profile document on the website--a frightening propaganda film entitled <a href="http://www.leadershipinstitute.org/04RESOURCES/rootsleft.htm">"Roots of the Ultra Left: What They Really Think"</a>--contains <a href="http://www.leadershipinstitute.org/04RESOURCES/RootsLeft_002.htm">voice-over</a> lines like, "around the world, there's been ample evidence: free enterprise means prosperity. And free enterprise is driven by the possibility of profit. Just don’t try to explain that to the young and dumb at a leftist rally." Can anyone expain how this fire-breathing propaganda dragon is <a href="http://www.leadershipinstitute.org/01ABOUTUS/copyright.htm">tax-exempt</a>? And Fox News thinks the NAACP should be <a href="http://ad-server-d10.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,140275,00.html">taxed</a>? [To save you the agony of reading Bill O'Reilly: he says to outgoing NAACP President Kweisi Mfume, "But you've got to admit that (Julian) Bond (of the NAACP leadership) really was an anti-Bush guy and to get the tax-exempt status, you're really supposed to be in the middle..."]. So, the White House lied, too. They said they didn't know GOPUSA.com from FeedTheDonkey.com or WePaintTrucks.com, when in fact the owner of the GOPUSA website, Eberle, worked for the Bush campaign in 2000, was one of the thirty-something Texas Delegates who put Bush over the top for the 2004 presidential nomination, and hosts Washington conferences which Administration officials and G.O.P. heavyweights fall over themselves to attend. Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan "looked into" GOPUSA, but apparently had no opinion on statements by Bobby Eberle (with whom Fleischer spoke), posted on the website, which <a href="http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/bobby/2003/bobby_1103.shtml">said</a> "[GOPUSA] is about...work[ing] for [conservative] candidates." So, how does an organization which is committed to "working for conservative candidates" cover a conservative White House without "working for" the conservative occupants of that house? [And has anyone besides Daily Kos highlighted the fact that GOPUSA was founded as a consulting company for Republican candidates in 1999?]. So, Jeff Gannon lied. He said he had "no political ties." He gave a false name to the Daschle campaign. He used an alias in the White House. He fed opposition research to a Republican senatorial campaign in South Dakota while later crowing to National Public Radio about "the White House being his beat" and being an unaffiliated journalist. So, Bobby Eberle lied. He claimed "Jeff did his thing, I did my thing," and now he refuses to talk about Gannon at all. He said he saw writing samples from Gannon before he hired him, but Gannon hadn't published any work; he convinced Ari Fleischer his website wasn't partisan but <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/18/opinion/lynch/main675050.shtml">admitted</a> to the New York Times that the name of the site carries a "built-in bias"; he was responsible for the initial press pass Gannon received but now claims to have sought no responsibility whatsoever, editorial or merely supervisory, for anything Gannon wrote. He purports to carry a low profile in the Republican Party but says in <a href="http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/bobby/2003/bobby_1103.shtml">speeches</a> that he is friends with Kerri Houston, who, as the National Field Director of the American Conservative Union and a member of President Bush's Commission to Strengthen Social Security, hosted the <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20011122195545/www.conservative.org/bootcamp.htm">American Conservative Union Policy Boot Camp</a> in Washington in 2001, which Eberle attended to "spend some time promoting GOPUSA at the Capitol." [Apparently all that time spent promoting was fruitless; three years later nobody Republican and Washington-dwelling would be willing to admit knowing him at all. Apparently it was also a waste to have <a href="http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/bobby/2003/bobby_0908.shtml">attended</a> President Bush's 2001 inauguration]. There are even <a href="http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/default.asp?view=plink&id=397">allegations</a> that GOPUSA is hosted by the same server as the Conservative Political Action Committee, whose conferences (which Eberle has attended) typically include such G.O.P. luminaries as Vice President Dick Cheney and, yes, Karl Rove.

Quote:

<a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/18/opinion/lynch/main675050.shtml">http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/18/opinion/lynch/main675050.shtml</a>
Rove-Gannon Connection?
WASHINGTON, Feb. 18, 2005
**************************
<a href="http://nashuaadvocate.blogspot.com/2005/02/credible-evidence-emerges-that-jeff.html">News From The U.S. Election Reform Movement

Sunday, February 20, 2005
Credible Evidence Emerges That Jeff Gannon Coordinated With the G.O.P. to Bring Down Former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) in 2004 Election

Post-Election, Daschle Campaign Aide Says Thune and Gannon "Worked Hand in Hand"; Gannon's Work in South Dakota Shows Substantial Ties to Current Thune Campaign Staffer Jason Van Beek</a>

Daschle opponent John Thune's campaign manager was Dick Wadham, an old political crony of Karl Rove's; the kind of pal Rove could ask to hire his first cousin, John Wood, a few years back. Wadham put the bloggers on the campaign payroll and the symbiotic relationship between the campaign, the bloggers and "reporter" Gannon continued. On September 29, Gannon broke the story that Daschle had claimed a special tax exemption for a house in Washington and the bloggers jumped all over it. According to a November 17 posting on South Dakota Politics--a site that Van Beek, who has become a staffer for now-Sen. Thune, has bequeathed to Lauck--"Jeff Gannon, whose reportage had a dramatic impact on the Daschle v. Thune race (his story about Sen. Daschle signing a legal document claiming to be a D.C. resident was published nearly the same day Thune began to run an ad showing Daschle saying, 'I'm a D.C. resident') has written an analysis of the debacle."

Daschle aides told Roll Call, "This guy (Gannon) became the dumping ground for opposition research." The connections are so strong that there is an FEC challenge which could be a test case on the limits of the use of the Internet in federal campaigns.

Quote:

<a href="http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/pressingissues_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000817453">http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/pressingissues_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000817453</a>
Gannon's to the Right of Me

By Greg Mitchell

Published: February 24, 2005 11:00 PM ET

Ten days ago, James Guckert told E&P he was through talking to the press, and now he won’t shut up. He’s even suggesting that some of his critics are “tingling” from viewing “sexy pictures” of him on the Web.

On Thursday, the once and perhaps future reporter known as Jeff Gannon, appeared on the Today Show and reactivated his Web site. It’s called <a href="http://www.jeffgannon.com/">“Jeff Gannon: A Voice of the New Media,”</a> with the tagline, “So feared by the Left it had to take me down.”

Claiming he was “bruised but not broken,” James/Jeff announced: “I’m baaaaaaaack!” He vowed to “battle the Left,” which he accuses of “21st Century McCarthyism” against conservatives. “I’m stronger than before,” he threatened.

But forget about answering any of those charges about his “personal life…I won’t be discussing any of that stuff here.”

Just days ago, some wondered if the Gannon scandal would ever warrant the revered suffix “gate.” Now, on the site, he repeatedly refers to “Gannongate” himself. .................
He denounces those who found “sexy pictures” of him on the Web, which inspired “rumors and conspiracy theories.” Forget for a moment that Guckert has now refused, on half a dozen occasions (including three interviews with E&P), to deny his part in the sex-escort trade. Here he says, “Based on some of the emails I’ve received, many of these people were conflicted with hatred for my politics and tingling they experienced while viewing pictures said to be me.”

He also thanks God for his “career as a reporter” and the fact that he was “further blessed to become a White House correspondent.”

Then there’s this gem: “If I had been a liberal reporter with the salacious past now attributed to me, I would be the Grand Marshall of the next Gay Pride Parade as well as a media darling, able to give softball interviews.” Well, he is an expert on softball questions, that’s for sure.................

<a href="http://mediamatters.org/topics/gannongate.html">Gannon News Coverage Updates</a>

Quote:

<a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200502230003">http://mediamatters.org/items/200502230003</a>
As of February 22, none of the <a href="http://www.accessabc.com/reader/top100.htm">five largest</a> U.S. newspapers* (USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post) had devoted an editorial on any aspect of the recent revelation that former Talon News Washington bureau chief and White House correspondent Jeff Gannon (aka James D. Guckert) was permitted to attend White House press briefings under an alias and despite having <a href="http://mediamatters.org/topics/gannongate.html">no credentials as a journalist</a>. By contrast, numerous smaller newspapers -- ranging in size from the Houston Chronicle and Minneapolis Star-Tribune to several college newspapers -- have examined the issue in editorials. 

Here are some examples:
<ul>
<li>"An open letter to Louise Slaughter," <a href="http://www.niagarafallsreporter.com/editorial188.html">Niagara Falls Reporter</a> (New York), February 8.</li> 
<li>"Our View," <a href="http://www.augustafreepress.com/stories/storyReader$31588">Augusta Free Press</a> (Virginia), February 11.</li> 
<li>"Fake reporter's questioning of the president fits into the administration's widening pattern of manufactured journalism," <a href="http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/editorial/3038061">Houston Chronicle</a>, February 13.</li> 

<li>"White House in scandal over fake reporter," <a href="http://www.pittnews.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/02/16/4212e105e073e">The Pitt News</a> (University of Pittsburgh), February 16.</li> 
<li>"Just how did 'Gannon' get White House access?" <a href="http://www.pensacolanewsjournal.com/opinion/html/A99F0567-9C43-4BD0-A70A-0AEFA27C0541.shtml"> The Pensacola News Journal</a> (Florida), February 16.</li> 
<li>"Phony journalist/Pimping for the White House," <a href="http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/5247250.html">Minneapolis Star-Tribune</a>, February 18.</li> 

<li>"Viewpoint: Undermining free speech," <a href="http://www.dailytexanonline.com/news/2005/02/18/Opinion/Viewpoint.Undermining.Free.Speech-869179.shtml"> The Daily Texan</a> (University of Texas), February 18.</li> 
<li>"The 'Jeff Gannon' Story," <a href="http://www.oregonlive.com/editorials/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/editorial/1108818080222430.xml"> The Oregonian</a>, February 19.</li> 
<li>"And Another Thing ..." <a href="http://www.bangornews.com/news/templates/?a=109161&z=34"> The Bangor Daily News</a> (Maine), February 19.</li> 

<li>"The Propaganda Administration" (paid subscription required), <a href="https://www.timesfreepress.com/archive/SecureAuth.asp?Path=ChatTFPress/2005/02/20&ID=Ar06303&Qry=%22Jeff+Gannon%22">Chattanooga Times Free Press</a> (Tennessee), February 20.</li> 
</ul>

NCB · 02-25-2005, 05:31 AM

Quote:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200502230003
As of February 22, none of the five largest U.S. newspapers* (USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post) had devoted an editorial on any aspect of the recent revelation that former Talon News Washington bureau chief and White House correspondent Jeff Gannon (aka James D. Guckert) was permitted to attend White House press briefings under an alias and despite having no credentials as a journalist.

1. Look at your sources. If you want to post blogasphere material and present them as "evidence" that's your decision. However, don't try to pass these guys off as objective, the left winge blogs or the rightwing blogs, because they are not.

2. Have you performed any other research into the other White House press corp and see where their political loyalties lie? I have, and I'll post the link to my blog when I'm finished

3. You really wanna know why the liberal press has not pressed the issue? One, see above in line #2. Secondly, do you remember the question that was asked? He accurately quoted two prominent Democratic leaders who contradict themselves with statement made one day apart. His question was as good as any other "journalist" in the WHPC.

chickentribs · 02-26-2005, 01:23 AM

I agree that this should be bigger news, Host. Unfortunately it hits a little too close to home for any of the press to want to pursue this aggressively - it diminishes credibility of the Press Corp as a whole. Thanks for the articles...

guy44 · 02-26-2005, 04:07 PM

Please, NCB, the blogosphere just did what the MSM (mainstream media) didn't. Guckert was a male gay prostitute with no journalistic experience or credentials who got access to the White House Press Corps on behalf of a phony news organization and got to ask the President and his press secretary questions. He was denied access to the Congressional Press Corps because he was so unqualified! And yet he got into the White House.

Oh, and the fake news company he worked for is owned and operated by the same guy who runs GOP USA, which as you might imagine has some slight bias issues.

So how did this guy get into the WH? Why wasn't he screened? How did the Bushies know to call on him for easy softball questions? This is a real story - its just more bullshit from the Bush WH. Oh - and you may not think this is a real story, but apparantly some Congressmen do, as they've demanded an investigation.

NCB · 02-26-2005, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chickentribs

I agree that this should be bigger news, Host. Unfortunately it hits a little too close to home for any of the press to want to pursue this aggressively - it diminishes credibility of the Press Corp as a whole. Thanks for the articles...

Why should this be more newsworthy than it is?

chickentribs · 02-26-2005, 04:30 PM

A new reporter is given full White House access priviledges and VIP treatment in seating priority and is singled out for questions consistantly, even though no other journalist in the room has met him before... Finally, as reporters are known to do, someone digs a little into his background, and turns up that he has neither the education, credentials or even the name that appeared on his White House pass. He does have many ties to the RNC though, and publishes a neo-blog once a week on the net. Aside from whatever Federal laws were broken for lying on his clearance applications - it could look like McClellan set up a stooge to ask the softball questions he preferred when he didn't want to answer real questions.

Freedom of Press and all...

NCB · 02-26-2005, 04:57 PM

I (and apparently, most of America) still don't see the major story in this. I think the problem most journalists/liberals have with this is the questions he had asked. Let's look at them:

Quote:

Thank you. Senate Democratic leaders have painted a very bleak picture of the U.S. economy. [Senate Minority Leader] Harry Reid [D-NV] was talking about soup lines. And [Senator] Hillary Clinton [D-NY] was talking about the economy being on the verge of collapse. Yet in the same breath they say that Social Security is rock solid and there's no crisis there. How are you going to work -- you've said you are going to reach out to these people -- how are you going to work with people who seem to have divorced themselves from reality?

How is he off base with this question? Sure it's an easy one for the Prez to knock out of the park, but what parts of the question is not an accurate assement of Democrat leaders?

Quote:

"Gannon: Scott, when you talk about the unemployment -- or the jobs being created, is that based on the payroll survey, or the household survey? Because there's -- because of the tax cuts, there's been a tremendous increase in the number of entrepreneurs that have started their own businesses, and those numbers aren't reflected in the payroll survey.

Again, he's absolutely correct in acknowledging the two different models in determining unemployment numbers.

Quote:

Gannon: "Thank you. First of all, I hope the grand jury didn't force you to turn over the wedding card I sent to you and your wife. (Laughter.) Do you see any hypocrisy in the controversy about the President's mention of 9/11 in his ads, when Democratic icon Franklin Delano Roosevelt's campaign issued this button, that says, 'Remember Pearl Harbor'? I have a visual aid for folks watching at home."

He correctly points out historical facts. What's wrong with the question?

raveneye · 02-26-2005, 05:29 PM

Quote:

I think the problem most journalists/liberals have with this is the questions he had asked.

The problems are (1) he had no credentials, yet he was part of the WH press corps for two years; (2) he was obviously and intentionally partisan; (3) he may have been involved in the Plame outing (according to his own statements).

If it were president Kerry's press corps instead of Bush's, then this story would be plastered all over the media.

chickentribs · 02-26-2005, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

I (and apparently, most of America) still don't see the major story in this. I think the problem most journalists/liberals have with this is the questions he had asked. Let's look at them:

How is he off base with this question? Sure it's an easy one for the Prez to knock out of the park, but what parts of the question is not an accurate assement of Democrat leaders?

Again, he's absolutely correct in acknowledging the two different models in determining unemployment numbers.

He correctly points out historical facts. What's wrong with the question?

Thank you, NCB for helping me to crystallize just how important this is. The White House Press Corp is the public's only access to the decisions our elected leaders are making on a day to day basis, in many ways a balance for us to shoot up flares if they sense anything outside of the public's interest is happening. I find it extremely offenssive that The White House Press Secretary has such little respect for our interest that he would falsify documents, identity, bold-face lie to this group of people that are suppossed to trust his information, and make a mockery of the idea of Free Press. It's bad enough this hack didn't even have the chops to pass as a journalist, but he is wasting the time of everybody in that room to make jokes and run down Democrats.

Obviously I have my issues with current administration, but I always respect the office. If they let this clown in on government time to make the equivalent of fart jokes while real journalist are trying to get information on war efforts, my tax dollars, and rising escalations with Iran it is sadly obvious the respect isn't returned.

NCB · 02-26-2005, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raveneye

The problems are (1) he had no credentials, yet he was part of the WH press corps for two years; (2) he was obviously and intentionally partisan; (3) he may have been involved in the Plame outing (according to his own statements).

If it were president Kerry's press corps instead of Bush's, then this story would be plastered all over the media.

1. Most of the WHPC are partisan liberals who make little effort in hiding it. What's the difference between the work that Gannon did and the work that Dan Rather did?

2. You're wrong about this being plastered all over the media if it were a Dem. Just look at the track record of the media during the Clinton era. Remember how Drudge got his big break? It was because he discovered a story by Newsweek that was spiked. And the story?? THe Clinton/Monica affair. A huge story by any definition and a major media outlet spiked it.

raveneye · 02-27-2005, 07:01 AM

Quote:

What's the difference between the work that Gannon did and the work that Dan Rather did?

1. Rather is a real journalist. 2. The WH did not encourage (hire?) Rather to create favorable "news". 3. Rather's faux pas was plastered all over the media, Gannon's wasn't.

Quote:

Just look at the track record of the media during the Clinton era.

Yep. Lewinsky was plastered all over the media, just like Gannon would be if he had been hired by dems.

NCB · 02-27-2005, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raveneye

1. Rather is a real journalist. 2. The WH did not encourage (hire?) Rather to create favorable "news". 3. Rather's faux pas was plastered all over the media, Gannon's wasn't.

Could it be that Rather's "journalism" affected a national presiudential race? Isn't that more newsworthy? And oh, what exactly makes a real journalist? If you're gonna talk about first class investigating and objectivity, Dan Rather doesn;t make the cut

Quote:

Yep. Lewinsky was plastered all over the media, just like Gannon would be if he had been hired by dems.

It was finally, but the media went kicking and screaming. So you're saying that the Boston still would have assigned two investigative reporters if there was a Dem in office? No offense, but if you believe that, you're living in a parallel universe

raveneye · 02-27-2005, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Could it be that Rather's "journalism" affected a national presiudential race?

Sure. What's wrong with that? Has any presidential race in the history of this country not been affected by "journalism"?

Quote:

Isn't that more newsworthy?

More newsworthy than the WH hiring a fake reporter to spread fake news favorable to the WH and to republicans that could affect the outcome of a presidential election?

Nope.

Quote:

It was finally, but the media went kicking and screaming.

The media loved the whole Lewinsky circus.

Quote:

No offense, but if you believe that, you're living in a parallel universe

That's an insult, not an argument.

NCB · 02-27-2005, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Sure. What's wrong with that? Has any presidential race in the history of this country not been affected by "journalism"?

Do you mean aside from the fact that the report and the documents were lies? You don't have a problem with that?

raveneye · 02-27-2005, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Do you mean aside from the fact that the report and the documents were lies? You don't have a problem with that?

Some of the documents may have been lies, or they may have been exact copies of discarded documents.

The story itself was not a lie.

NCB · 02-27-2005, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raveneye

Some of the documents may have been lies, or they may have been exact copies of discarded documents.

The story itself was not a lie.

LOL!!!

When you base your entire story on forged docs, it's a lie. Making exact copies from discarded docs?

Sometimes, when I'm debating with liberals, I don't realize that I've been hood winked by some of their illogical rhetoric and I thus take it seriously. I believe I've been fooled again

raveneye · 02-27-2005, 10:16 AM

Quote:

When you base your entire story on forged docs, it's a lie.

Apparently you never saw the story, otherwise you would know (1) the "entire story" was based on a large array of unquestioned sources; and (2) the WH never disputed the details of the story.

roachboy · 02-27-2005, 11:27 AM

it appears that conservatives have become so used to living in an ideological echo chamber that the details of how things work inside of it are not interesting to them.

let's see
for example, from the old days when the right was still in opposition, their tactics included:

fake social movements developed by the christian coalition and later tobacco companies that used a switching mechanism--canvasserrs could cold call, discuss a political issue, ask if you would like to speak with a congress person and then put you straight through--works to give the illusion of massive active support when the key is in fact a switch.

a style of self-confirming propaganda enframing: the likes of limbaugh, loyal transmission belts for propositions worked out at the level of think tanks (heritage, hoover, aei, cato, the list goes on) claim to speak for all americans, to themselves be in a position to dfein who and what america is. there is never any dissent: it is a self-enclosed, self-referential, self-confirming political environment.
conservatives like that.
makes them feel part of something Big.

the pathological, relentless demonization of clinton etc. within this echo chamber world,
etc etc

since bushworld was handed the gift of 9/11/2001--the kind of gift that would seem to confirm to someone like bush that he is in fact on a mission from some god---a gift, a wedge around which its more authoritarian aspects could enter into the political fray--the gift that keeps on giving because it, more than anything else, explains how bush could possibly have been re-elected....

systematic propaganda in favor of totally unnecessary, unjustified and unjustifable miliatry adventurism. campaign after campaign to label any and all opposition unamerican, unpatriotic, blah blah blah--starting with the ludiucrous assault on france for opposing the fradulent case the administration tried to foist on the unsc, to more recent campaigns like those demonizing michael moore, etc.

total control over the press--through pooling, through limiting access, through screening of questions, etc.: the gannon thing is just a small part of this. the point of control of press access: the creation of the illusion of unanimity---in the grand tradition of leni riefenstahl's "triumph of the will"--the Nation unified around Miltiary Values and the Person of the Leader....

the right might be politically vacant, an authoritarian political movement where the term democracy is bandied about on orders from the top--but they have figured out how to develop an impressive media apparatus.
as much as i loathe karl rove--as much as i understand him of being the worst, most debased type of political operative---you got to hand it to the guy--at the level of tactics, he is good. he certainly has chumped many conservatives into forgetting that their politics functions logically only within this media shell.

fake reporters
fake memos leaked to networks in order to then be discredited (bush and the "problem" of vietnam...the "problem" for flag waving rightwingers that should have been posed by his chicken-hawk past--all resolved by a clever, nasty rove-trick
fake questions
fake answers
fake rationale for war
fake president
fake politics

Tophat665 · 02-27-2005, 03:29 PM

My my, NCB, they've got you trained well. I'm impressed, if vaguely nauseated.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

1. Look at your sources. If you want to post blogasphere material and present them as "evidence" that's your decision. However, don't try to pass these guys off as objective, the left winge blogs or the rightwing blogs, because they are not.

Can't fault the message? Fault the medium. I hear this every time I call BS on Faux News. Well now the same argument is used on you.

Quote:

2. Have you performed any other research into the other White House press corp and see where their political loyalties lie? I have, and I'll post the link to my blog when I'm finished

Can't get away with saying your guy was right? Say the other guy was wrong. That's why we still keep hearing about Clinton's Cock almost 10 years later.

Quote:

3. You really wanna know why the liberal press has not pressed the issue? One, see above in line #2. Secondly, do you remember the question that was asked? He accurately quoted two prominent Democratic leaders who contradict themselves with statement made one day apart. His question was as good as any other "journalist" in the WHPC.

There is no Liberal Press. Not in the way you mean. Saying it over and over again simply will not make it true.

I get so tired of seeing these techniques used over and over and over again. Fine. Calling shenanigans on all three of your points. It's conversational terrorism you have going there, nothing more.

Codename47 · 03-06-2005, 06:59 AM

Wow, that NCB guy just got stomped like the bad joke that he is

host · 03-07-2005, 08:49 PM

Some mainstream press coverage, in the heartland:

Quote:

<A href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kansascity.com%2Fmld%2Fkansascity%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2F11076197.htm&btnG=Google+Search">http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/politics/11076197.htm</a>

Posted on Mon, Mar. 07, 2005

Democrats ask White House for documents on conservative blogger

BY ELANA SCHOR

Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - (KRT) - U.S. Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., the House's top Democrat for homeland security, has found an unlikely place in need of his protection: the White House press room.

Thompson and four colleagues, all senior congressional Democrats, have petitioned Bush administration officials to release classified documents about James D. Guckert, a conservative activist who was a daily fixture at White House press briefings.

Calling himself Jeff Gannon, Guckert asked President Bush questions at televised news conferences as a representative of Talon News Service, which was a Web site affiliated with Texas Republican Bobby Eberle.

"Any time there's a situation like this, where there are plants or presumed plants in the White House press corps, whatever story comes out of the White House is tainted," said Lanier Avant, Thompson's chief of staff.

"We want to remove that stain."

Soon after his true identity was revealed, Guckert shut down his personal Web site that he had been using to repackage Republican press releases as news stories. Talon News Service also shut down last month.

Avant said the congressman did not believe Gannon's presence to be an isolated incident of misconduct in the White House media operation, but that Thompson was not opposed to the certification of bloggers, writers for Web journals, on an individual basis.

Monday marked the first White House press briefing that a blogger, for www.mediabistro.com, was officially permitted to attend.

"The test will be, is that reporter producing some objective, newsworthy matter that's not slanted to one political ideology or another?" Avant said.

daswig · 03-07-2005, 09:03 PM

Are there statutorily defined definitions of who composes "the press" and who does not?

I've had articles published in various small newspapers (and no, they were not editorials or letters to the editors). Does that mean I'm a member of the press? How about if I'm working on an article? Is a freelance reporter a member of "the press"? Do you have to be published to be a member of "the press"? Is there some secret press ID card or handshake that you have to have or know?

All this story shows is how desperate some on the left are. And I can't express how ironic I find it that the left is up in arms about a guy who had a gay-oriented website being a member of "the press". Their behavior makes it seem like they think there's something WRONG with homosexuality or commerical porn websites. I guess it's kind of like Packwood...NOW loved him, even when he was serially abusing women.

host · 03-07-2005, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

Are there statutorily defined definitions of who composes "the press" and who does not?

I've had articles published in various small newspapers (and no, they were not editorials or letters to the editors). Does that mean I'm a member of the press? How about if I'm working on an article? Is a freelance reporter a member of "the press"? Do you have to be published to be a member of "the press"? Is there some secret press ID card or handshake that you have to have or know?

All this story shows is how desperate some on the left are. And I can't express how ironic I find it that the left is up in arms about a guy who had a gay-oriented website being a member of "the press". Their behavior makes it seem like they think there's something WRONG with homosexuality or commerical porn websites. I guess it's kind of like Packwood...NOW loved him, even when he was serially abusing women.

A judge in Santa Clara, Ca will soon try to decide "who is a journalist"

Quote:

<a href="http://nytimes.com/2005/03/07/technology/07blog.htm">http://nytimes.com/2005/03/07/technology/07blog.htm</a>
At a Suit's Core: Are Bloggers Reporters, Too?
By JONATHAN GLATER

Published: March 7, 2005

In the physical world, being labeled a journalist may confer little prestige and may even evoke some contempt. But being a journalist can also confer certain privileges, like the right to keep sources confidential. And for that reason many bloggers, a scrappy legion of online commentators and pundits, would like to be considered reporters, too.

A lawsuit filed in California by Apple Computer is drawing the courts into that question: who should be considered a journalist?

The case, which involves company secrets that Apple says were disclosed on several Web sites, is being closely followed in the world of online commentators, but it could have broad implications for journalists working for traditional news organizations as well.

If the court, in Santa Clara County, rules that bloggers are journalists, the privilege of keeping news sources confidential will be applied to a large new group of people, perhaps to the point that it may be hard for courts in the future to countenance its extension to anyone. .........

.Apple has asked the court to compel the Web sites that displayed the product information to disclose their identity. Bloggers are fighting Apple's efforts, which it has focused on three Web sites - Thinksecret.com, Appleinsider.com and PowerPage.org.

The judge in the case, James Kleinberg, is required only to interpret a California statute that recognizes a privilege protecting reporters in keeping news sources confidential. A ruling could come as early as this week.

On its face, the lawsuit brought by Apple has to do with theft of trade secrets. But Susan Crawford, a law professor at Cardozo law school of Yeshiva University (and a blogger herself), says that the steps Apple has asked the court to take open a broader question.

"Under what circumstances should an online forum be forced to disclose a source behind information that they're posting?" Ms. Crawford said. "There is no principled distinction between a New York Times reporter and a blogger for these purposes. Both operate as news sources for wide swaths of the general public."

Blogs, she added, are already becoming more and more powerful, and some have readerships that exceed those of small-town newspapers. "We've seen it with Rather being brought down by bloggers," she said, referring to the CBS news anchor, who came under intense scrutiny by bloggers after a "60 Minutes Wednesday" segment on President Bush's National Guard service was broadcast .

Judge Kleinberg is likely to try to decide the case on the narrowest possible grounds, perhaps reading the text of the California law at issue to cover only people who work for traditional newspapers and magazines or television news programs, and to avoid deciding if bloggers are indeed journalists, Ms. Crawford said.

Whatever the judge's decision, it is all but certain to be appealed. But the question of who is a journalist is to many a matter of deeper concern.

And.....Daswig, you did not respond in your argument to the evidence that Gannon was "selling sex" as a male escort (prostitute), and that the White House and Sen. Thune may (should) have been aware of that.

The link to the White House press office application for a "day pass" displays the questions that Mr. Guckert was required to submit answers to. The man
produced ID that said his name was Guckert in order to pass through Secret Service check points and gain admission to the press room. Then Scott McLellan and the POTUS called on him by name during live TV broadcasts.
They both called on him by his "fake" name, "Jeff", and not his real name,
"James". I think that we deserve to know how and why this could happen.

Quote:

<a href="http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000828437">http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000828437</a>
Pot, Meet Kettle: Gannon Comments on First Blogger at WH Briefing

By E&P Staff

Published: March 07, 2005 12:25 PM ET

NEW YORK On his Web site today, he slams Mark Jurkowitz of The Boston Globe and hints that he knows Sen. Joe Biden. But former reporter and escort James Guckert -- a.k.a. Jeff Gannon -- also highlights news that a blogger, after several attempts last week, had finally been cleared to attend a White House press briefing today. The new blogger on the block is Garrett M. Graff, who writes FishBowlDC. (See separate story.)

Gannon writes: "The New York Times is hailing the first blogger to be issued a 'day pass' to a White House press briefing. It goes to great lengths to play up his genealogical background in journalism, but fails to mention that the Vermont native served as deputy national press secretary on Howard Dean's presidential campaign last year. Hmmm... no political ties there!

"According to the 'Gannon Standard,' I am expecting to see other bloggers' reports on his sexual and financial history as well as some conspiracy theories about who this guy is.

"Actually, I like the guy, we've talked on the phone several times. I wish him luck and am pleased that others will gain from what I pioneered. Now I'm looking for a conservative blogger to step up and get in there!"

Gannon fails to mention that, whatever his political background, Graff is not currently employed by a partisan political organization (as Gannon was during his two-year stint at the White House), nor does Gannon differentiate "sexual history" from "selling sex."

guy44 · 03-07-2005, 09:57 PM

daswig:

Quote:

Are there statutorily defined definitions of who composes "the press" and who does not?

I've had articles published in various small newspapers (and no, they were not editorials or letters to the editors). Does that mean I'm a member of the press? How about if I'm working on an article? Is a freelance reporter a member of "the press"? Do you have to be published to be a member of "the press"? Is there some secret press ID card or handshake that you have to have or know?

Perhaps, perhaps not. However, I think it is sensible to assume that White House Press Corps reporters should have journalistic credentials or write for a real news source. GannonGuckert went to a two-day "leadership" school for right wing "journalists." Additionally, he was denied access to the Congressional Press Corps because Congress did not consider him a legitimate reporter. If he can't get access to the Congressional Press Corps, how can he get in to the White House Press Corps?

Let Maureen Dowd, New York Times editorialist, and someone I think we can all describe as a member of the press, explain:

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.

Link

Quote:

All this story shows is how desperate some on the left are. And I can't express how ironic I find it that the left is up in arms about a guy who had a gay-oriented website being a member of "the press". Their behavior makes it seem like they think there's something WRONG with homosexuality or commerical porn websites. I guess it's kind of like Packwood...NOW loved him, even when he was serially abusing women.

I love it when the pot calls the kettle homophobic. Somehow, wondering how a gay male prostitute got into the White House Press Corps makes me homophobic. Notice the way you call the websites on which he prostituted himself "gay-oriented websites." I believe gay-oriented websites may possibly be created for the express purpose of prostituting someone, or may not. In GannonGuckert's case, it was. THIS is what people pointed out; not the fact that it had a gay theme. The same arguments apply to porn websites; I frequent the TFP forums and accuse GannonGuckert of being sleaze; that does not make me hypocritical. In fact, I wouldn't give one damn about GannonGuckert's websites if they were strictly a gay-themed porn site - I only care that he used them to prostitute himself.

Additionally, you are missing several of the main points. Including, but not limited to:

1) How did this fake journalist get into the White House despite the fact that he had no credentials, was denied access to the Congressional Press Corps, used a fake name, owed outstanding taxes, and ran a website on which he prostituted himself?

2) Why did it appear that he was picked to ask stupid, inane and biased questions when the real press corps around him was getting "tough?"

3) How did he get the information about Valerie Plame's secret identity as a CIA agent and the fake report insinuating that she suggested her husband investigate concerns over yellowcake from Niger? Who gave it to him? Why? How is he involved?

4) Was the White House involved in getting him into the White House Press Corps in order to have him ask easy questions? There doesn't seem to be a way in which he could not have a background check without orders from the top ordering that there not be one.

5) Is GannonGuckert just another example of the White House trying to secretly influence the fourth estate through such means as creating propaganda that appears to be a news report, ordering the Social Security Administration to tell recipients that there won't be any money for them, and paying journalists such as Armstrong Williams money to advocate for policies on their behalf without disclosing the arrangement?

I don't think those above questions are desperate in nature or relate to an unimportant issue. The question is, why do you?

host · 03-07-2005, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

1. Look at your sources. If you want to post blogasphere material and present them as "evidence" that's your decision. However, don't try to pass these guys off as objective, the left winge blogs or the rightwing blogs, because they are not..........................

Well, NCB, the executive editor of the South Dakota newspaper, Argus Leader, Randell Beck, has now weighed in and he seems to corroborate much of what the nashuaadvocate.blogspot.com reported about Gannon's efforts on behalf of SD senate candidate Thune, and against Sen. Daschle and Argus Leader reporter , Kranz. This is a story that we will hear much more about and I don't think that your "shoot the messenger" tactic, instead of addressing and rebutting the story on it's merits, will work much for you, anymore. Gannon/Guckert did not set his sights on Daschle and the Argus Leader reporter, Kranz, without some help from high ranking Republican strategists, and there is a link between Karl Rove and a Thune campaign aid to examine more closely. Bide your time until the "liberal" press awakens and kicks all of this around.

Quote:

<a href="http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050306/COLUMNISTS01/503060308/1057/COLUMNISTS">http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050306/COLUMNISTS01/503060308/1057/COLUMNISTS</a>
Political zealots try to manipulate press coverage

By Randell Beck - Executive Editor
rabeck@argusleader.com

published: 03/6/05
In the age of the Internet, anyone with a computer and an ax to grind can pretend to be a journalist, and that's just what a zealot named Jeff Gannon did in 2003 and 2004 in a series of "articles" for a Web site devoted to the conservative cause.

His target: South Dakota's largest and most influential newspaper, the Argus Leader, and longtime political reporter David Kranz.

His goal: Damage the newspaper's credibility and, in the process, help John Thune defeat then-Sen. Tom Daschle in his 2004 re-election bid.

His tactics: Assemble a loose collection of "facts" to suggest Kranz and the newspaper had conspired to conceal what the GOP contended was the dark truth about Daschle - that he was a morally bankrupt Kennedy liberal hard at work undermining "South Dakota values."

But Gannon, who resigned his job at a Republican Web site last month after concerns arose about how he gained White House press credentials, didn't play that game alone.

Although questions remain about exactly how and to what extent they were connected, Gannon's accusations against this newspaper quickly found their way onto a few other conservative Web logs - "blogs" in the Internet world - designed to demonize Daschle...........................

In a recent posting on the Web site from which he promised to continue to "battle the Left,'' (www.jeffgannon.com) Guckert, Gannon or whatever his name is now, noted that Harry Reid of Nevada, who replaced Daschle as senate minority leader, had joined the call for an investigation into how Gannon received White House credentials.

Gannon's comment, "He should be thanking me since I helped get him his promotion.''

You read that correctly. Gannon appears to be taking some credit for Thune's win over Daschle in November.

Argus Leader assailed

The attacks on the Argus Leader began in earnest in June 2003 - 18 months before Daschle was up for re-election - when a little-known Sioux Falls Republican named Neal Tapio announced he was considering running against Daschle in the 2004 senate race.

Thune, at that point, had not said whether he would run against Daschle.

Tapio's brief "candidacy" amounted to a series of breathless press releases in which he claimed to have documented a close personal relationship between Daschle and Kranz going back to their years as students at South Dakota State University.

The gist of Tapio's claims: Daschle and Kranz had worked together as members of a political science club to organize a mock Democratic Party convention in 1968 and that Kranz, as a reporter for the campus newspaper, had written a story about it.

Kranz, Tapio charged, even worked for Eugene McCarthy, the Democratic senator from Minnesota who ran for president in 1968.

Ever since their student days, Tapio claimed, Kranz had failed to disclose his "relationship'' with Daschle which he now claimed tainted our coverage.

"This continued failure to disclose contradicts the basic principles of journalistic integrity,'' Tapio exclaimed in one release, calling on me to bar Kranz from covering anything to do with Daschle.

The problem with Tapio's charges is that they omitted certain inconvenient facts or fudged the truth. Yes, Kranz and Daschle had attended SDSU, the former graduating in 1968 and the future senator a year later. And yes, there had been a mock convention.

No, Kranz was not a member of the political science club. But he, Daschle and roughly 30 other students had wanted to stage a mock GOP convention until a teacher, reacting to then-President Lyndon Johnson's decision not to seek re-election, suggested to them a Democratic convention would be more interesting and timely.

And that bit about Kranz working for McCarthy? It didn't happen.

Kranz is among the most ethical reporters I know. He's meticulous in avoiding conflicts of interest. He plays no favorites. He is fair and thorough to a fault; ask any editor who's had to trim one of his stories to fit the space allowed.

But truth alone is rarely the standard - or the goal - of those who seek to demonize the media as part of a larger strategy. Within days, I was introduced to Talon's Jeff Gannon when he called me for a response to Tapio's charges.

I did respond, suggesting that Tapio had "taken some facts and embellished them.'' Predictably, Gannon's "report" on Talon News focused on the alleged sinister relationship between Kranz and Daschle and offered no attempt at fairness.

It didn't take long to figure out where he was headed. And it didn't take a genius to figure out that the bloggers wanted me to respond to the attacks. That just provided more grist for the mill.

A short time later, Tapio announced his decision not to run against Daschle. At lunch with Kranz several months later, Tapio apologized and said he regretted making the unsubstantiated accusations against the political reporter.

Right-wing students

But those accusations didn't die. Those and additional claims of Kranz's alleged bias, again based on a combination of fact, fiction and speculation, made the rounds of area blogs, notably one maintained by a University of South Dakota law student, Jason Van Beek, and another by Jon Lauck, an associate professor of history at South Dakota State University.

Van Beek and Lauck hail from the right wing of the GOP, and they took it upon themselves to discredit the Argus Leader to build support for Thune. And it was pretty clear from the beginning they weren't going to let facts stand in the way.

I vividly recall the headline from one stunning report on Lauck's blog. It may have overreached just a tad: "The Argus Leader and the Degradation of American Democracy.''

Another memorable entry turned up on Van Beek's Web site in 2003. It said, in part, that Daschle and Kranz had both been active in "Young Democrats." But just in case that wasn't exactly right, Van Beek added this postscript: "Correction: My sources tell me David Kranz MAY have been involved in Young Democrats while a student at SDSU in the '60s. It's not an absolute certainty that he was. If he was, that is something that should be disclosed. If he wasn't, I apologize for the mistake.''

Well, there you go.

It's not really worth chronicling the rest of the campaign against Kranz and the newspaper, except to note that Thune's campaign recognized its obvious value.

Thune's campaign paid $27,000 to Lauck and about $8,000 to Van Beek, who landed a job working for Thune after the election. In an interview with Gannett News Service last week, Thune said the two bloggers were paid "because their research was so good. They were getting information that wasn't coming out anywhere else.''

Thune also said Lauck and Van Beek helped him prepare for debates.

And was Thune similarly rewarded for employing Van Beek and Lauck? Did he benefit, as the left wing now maintains, from bloggers' efforts to manipulate public opinion?

"You can't believe how many fathers there are of this victory,'' Thune said half-jokingly last week. "My media guy said it was television. My campaign thinks it was our organization. ... What decided the race was issue differences as much as anything else.''

And what about Gannon, who now seems to be claiming some credit for swaying voters in last November's election? It seems unlikely.

Thune said his campaign never paid Gannon and that blogs, whether conservative or liberal, mostly preach to the choir. "I'm not sure that blogs swing a lot of undecided voters,'' he said.

Blogs as political tool

Nevertheless, it's clear Thune views blogs as a valuable political tool.

As The New York Times reported recently, Thune has introduced other senators to the concept of blogs and how self-published online political commentary can sway public opinion.

"I think there's value there, and I've conveyed this to our leadership,'' Thune said.

That acknowledgement, coupled with the rising influence of nontraditional media on the Internet, is a powerful indicator of what you can expect in elections to come.

More than that, it is a powerful sign of what you can expect tomorrow or next month. A week rarely goes by when at least one reader doesn't call me to ask why we haven't published a story on, say, some scandal involving some national figure.

A man recently called me to ask why we were covering up the revelation - he'd read it somewhere on the Internet - that Bush political adviser Karl Rove had written a memo laying out the administration's efforts to get rid of Social Security entirely. I tracked that false report down to a left-wing blog.

Bombarded with information, you must read skeptically. Surrounded by rumors and innuendo that passes for news, you must demand high standards.

What I'm offering here is less of a defense of mainstream media than of journalism in all its forms, a vital part of our democracy.

"The triumph of the bloggers illustrates the revolutionary rise of the Internet, which is undermining the traditional media in many ways,'' Howard R. Gold, editor of Barron's Online wrote last month. Professional journalists, he said, "still do a better job than anyone else of informing the public about the most important events of our day.''

Gold warned that relentless pressure from society's political fringes already is pushing some media into "timidity and self-censorship.''

That hasn't happened at this newspaper, I am happy to say.

Will we make mistakes? Of course. Will we fail, on occasion, to meet the high standards that form our bond of trust with readers? Unfortunately, yes.

"But in our polarized country facing difficult challenges,'' Gold wrote, "the public needs our skills, experience and most of all our professionalism to give them the vital information they need to make good decisions about their lives and our nation's future.''

Today and tomorrow, we will try our best to do just that.

Quote:

<a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/18/opinion/lynch/main675050.shtml">http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/18/opinion/lynch/main675050.shtml</a>
Rove-Gannon Connection?

WASHINGTON, Feb. 18, 2005

Daschle opponent John Thune's campaign manager was Dick Wadham, an old political crony of Karl Rove's; the kind of pal Rove could ask to hire his first cousin, John Wood, a few years back. Wadham put the bloggers on the campaign payroll and the symbiotic relationship between the campaign, the bloggers and "reporter" Gannon continued. On September 29, Gannon broke the story that Daschle had claimed a special tax exemption for a house in Washington and the bloggers jumped all over it. According to a November 17 posting on South Dakota Politics – a site that Van Beek, who has become a staffer for now-Sen. Thune, has bequeathed to Lauck – "Jeff Gannon, whose reportage had a dramatic impact on the Daschle v. Thune race (his story about Sen. Daschle signing a legal document claiming to be a D.C. resident was published nearly the same day Thune began to run an ad showing Daschle saying, "I'm a D.C. resident) has written an analysis of the debacle."

matthew330 · 03-07-2005, 10:34 PM

...riveting...

(aren't you bored yet?)

samcol · 03-08-2005, 06:14 AM

This makes one wonder how many other fake or paid reporters that are out there working for the Republicans or Democrats.

daswig · 03-08-2005, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guy44

I don't think those above questions are desperate in nature or relate to an unimportant issue. The question is, why do you?

Probably for the same reason I thought Barney Frank's "roommate" running a gay escort service out of the basement of Frank's DC home was immaterial.

Quote:

However, I think it is sensible to assume that White House Press Corps reporters should have journalistic credentials or write for a real news source. Additionally, he was denied access to the Congressional Press Corps because Congress did not consider him a legitimate reporter. If he can't get access to the Congressional Press Corps, how can he get in to the White House Press Corps?

So what you're saying is that Congress shall pass a law regulating who is classified as a reporter or not? I can think of 1 minor Constitutional obstacle...

A free press means exactly that. It must be FREE. Even if that means that what YOU view as a "non-reputable" news service exists, or if they send somebody that YOU don't think of as being a "reporter" to cover a story. I'm pretty sure that a presidential press conference is "news", wouldn't you say?

Quote:

Let Maureen Dowd, New York Times editorialist, and someone I think we can all describe as a member of the press, explain:

Ah, we're going with the "impartial" New York Times...yup, they have NO history of employing journalistic WHORES there, do they... >COUGH< Jayson Blair >COUGH<

Quote:

Somehow, wondering how a gay male prostitute got into the White House Press Corps makes me homophobic.

Absolutely. It also exposes your anti-prostitute bias. BTW, you DO realize that you're accusing him of committing a criminal act (prostitution), right? When and where was he convicted of this crime? Ever hear of "innocent until proven guilty"? And it certainly SEEMS like your apparently unsubstantiated accusation is not only not made with an absence of malice, it seems downright deliberately malicious. But if that issue came up, it would be for a jury to decide...

Quote:

1) How did this fake journalist get into the White House despite the fact that he had no credentials, was denied access to the Congressional Press Corps, used a fake name, owed outstanding taxes, and ran a website on which he prostituted himself?

Prolly the same way the rest of the press whores got their day passes....they requested a daypass.

You DO know that they generally allow all kinds of people into the White House, right? Even non-reporters can take the tour...

Quote:

2) Why did it appear that he was picked to ask stupid, inane and biased questions when the real press corps around him was getting "tough?"

So a reporter asking inane questions is now a criminal act??? So when do those reporters go to prison who ask questions like "Your entire family just got eaten and killed by a Tornado. How do you feel?"

You don't think EVERY President knows who the tough and who the easy reporters in the room are? Is this somehow criminal?

Quote:

3) How did he get the information about Valerie Plame's secret identity as a CIA agent and the fake report insinuating that she suggested her husband investigate concerns over yellowcake from Niger? Who gave it to him? Why? How is he involved?

Ummm...maybe because he ACTUALLY IS A REPORTER??? I know you seem to have trouble getting past the whole "gay prostitutes cannot be reporters" thing, but TRY.

Quote:

4) Was the White House involved in getting him into the White House Press Corps in order to have him ask easy questions? There doesn't seem to be a way in which he could not have a background check without orders from the top ordering that there not be one.

Having recently been through a background check myself (not for the White House, but for a job in the State Judicial Branch), I know that it can take practically forever. Getting my fingerprint cards "run" took over a month. So why would a background check be required? Isn't running them through metal detectors enough? And how do you know that a cursory background check (akin to a NICS check) wasn't run?

Quote:

5) Is GannonGuckert just another example of the White House trying to secretly influence the fourth estate through such means as creating propaganda that appears to be a news report, ordering the Social Security Administration to tell recipients that there won't be any money for them, and paying journalists such as Armstrong Williams money to advocate for policies on their behalf without disclosing the arrangement?

Damn, I never thought of that...who would EVER have thought that the President of the United States ( >COUGH< "I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky" fingerjab fingerjab >COUGH COUGH< ) would ever try to influence the media???

Quote:

"You expect honesty from a Politician? Christ, next you'll expect charity from a banker."

/obvious sarcasm tag

guy44 · 03-08-2005, 12:23 PM

Dawig:

I wrote:

Quote:

However, I think it is sensible to assume that White House Press Corps reporters should have journalistic credentials or write for a real news source. Additionally, he was denied access to the Congressional Press Corps because Congress did not consider him a legitimate reporter. If he can't get access to the Congressional Press Corps, how can he get in to the White House Press Corps?

You wrote:

Quote:

So what you're saying is that Congress shall pass a law regulating who is classified as a reporter or not? I can think of 1 minor Constitutional obstacle...

A free press means exactly that. It must be FREE. Even if that means that what YOU view as a "non-reputable" news service exists, or if they send somebody that YOU don't think of as being a "reporter" to cover a story. I'm pretty sure that a presidential press conference is "news", wouldn't you say?

Where did I say that Congress should pass a law to define what a member of the press is? Anywhere? No. Seriously - please reply and show me exactly where I included any statement about Congress passing a law about anything, let alone about officially defining what a reporter is? I said that GannonGuckert couldn't meet the standards the Congressional Press Corps holds for allowing press members in, and wondered why the White House Press Corps standards are apparantly lower. It is not unreasonable to expect some basic standards; after all, there is limited amount of room in the Press Corps. I never suggested GannonGuckert shouldn't be allowed to act as a reporter, or publish, or gain access to sources or anything else. Simply that he got into the White House Press Corps despite not meeting the standards that the Press Corps itself set, not me. Please stop suggesting that I support something that I clearly do not.

Regarding the immense difficulties inherent in attaining access to the White House Press Corps, I wrote:

Quote:

Let Maureen Dowd, New York Times editorialist, and someone I think we can all describe as a member of the press, explain:

You replied:

Quote:

Ah, we're going with the "impartial" New York Times...yup, they have NO history of employing journalistic WHORES there, do they... >COUGH< Jayson Blair >COUGH<

See, here's the thing. If someone quotes, say, Trent Lott on the issue of steel tariffs, I don't reply, "Ah, we're going with the Senator who supporter Thurman's racist 1948 presidential platform." Instead, I'll reply to his specific points. Because, regardless of Lott's position on Thurman's platform, he may have insightful things to say about steel tariffs.

In this case, I quoted someone who's veracity as a journalist and editorialist has never been questioned. The New York Times is far from perfect, and I'm on the front lines of people who believe that Judith Miller, the Times reporter, should be fired. Still, the NYT has the greatest distribution in the country and remains the most respected news source in America. Dowd is an exceptionally well-regarded editorialist. Engaging in ad hominem attacks on the Times while avoiding Dowd's points simply lowers the standards of debate on these boards.

Furthermore, and let me clear here: she is an editorialist. I quoted an editorial. So when you ridicule the NYT as "impartial," I suggest that whatever qualms you may have about its news division, you should not summarily dismiss biased editorial pieces. Because they are supposed to express the opinion of the author, not report news in an unbiased manner. As far as I'm concerned, Dowd raised excellent questions and further raises doubts as to GannonGuckert's ability to gain access to the White House Press Corps without help from the White House. If you have particular information regarding her exploits regarding attempts to gain access to the White House Press Corps, or specific reason to believe she may not be telling the truth, please do share them. If not, please try to not dismiss Dowd offhand.

I wrote:

Quote:

Somehow, wondering how a gay male prostitute got into the White House Press Corps makes me homophobic.

You wrote:

Quote:

Absolutely. It also exposes your anti-prostitute bias. BTW, you DO realize that you're accusing him of committing a criminal act (prostitution), right? When and where was he convicted of this crime? Ever hear of "innocent until proven guilty"? And it certainly SEEMS like your apparently unsubstantiated accusation is not only not made with an absence of malice, it seems downright deliberately malicious. But if that issue came up, it would be for a jury to decide...

First of all, please don't call me homophobic. You don't know anything about me, and yet you would dare insult me in this manner? Hundreds of thousands of liberals and several Congressmen and Congresswomen, including several Senators, have demanded an investigation into GannonGuckert's White House Press Corps access. Does that make us all homophobic? I'm sure you were just trying to make a point, but I'd appreciate an apology.

Secondly, calling him a "gay male prostitute" is descriptive. I don't particularly care that the type of prostitute he is is "gay" and "male," but those adjectives are simply descriptive. It does NOT insinuate that it is wrong to be a gay male.

Thirdly, damn straight I have an anti-prostitute bias. I believe that prostitution is dehumanizing and degrading. You can feel free to hold a differing opinion, but this is mine.

Fourthly, you are right - I should have added that GannonGuckert is allegedly a prostitute. I will still refer to the websites that he ran and operated, posted his picture on, and ran, at the very least, an escort service from. I assume that he was prostituting himself, based on the evidence and language used on his website. However, I will add that he is accused of or allegedly a prostitute, not convicted of such, from now on.

I will now present the case for him being a prostitute, though I leave it for readers to determine for themselves. Take these images, all from GannonGuckert's website, for what you will:

All those images were from this website which also mentions that those websites included his "rates."

I report. You decide.

I wrote:

Quote:

1) How did this fake journalist get into the White House despite the fact that he had no credentials, was denied access to the Congressional Press Corps, used a fake name, owed outstanding taxes, and ran a website on which he prostituted himself?

You wrote:

Quote:

Prolly the same way the rest of the press whores got their day passes....they requested a daypass.

You DO know that they generally allow all kinds of people into the White House, right? Even non-reporters can take the tour...

Please read Maureen Dowd's editorial on the difficulties of attaining a day pass. I conveniently quoted the relevant passages in my original post. Additionally, non-reporter's don't get to attend White House press conference, don't get to ask the Press Secretary or the President questions during them, and sure as hell don't get called by their first name by the President.

I wrote:

Quote:

2) Why did it appear that he was picked to ask stupid, inane and biased questions when the real press corps around him was getting "tough?"

You wrote:

Quote:

So a reporter asking inane questions is now a criminal act??? So when do those reporters go to prison who ask questions like "Your entire family just got eaten and killed by a Tornado. How do you feel?"

You don't think EVERY President knows who the tough and who the easy reporters in the room are? Is this somehow criminal?

I don't know the law well enough to know if this is criminal. It is immoral, subversive, and propogandist if the White House planted a reporter in the White House Press Corps for the specific purpose of asking easy questions.

I wrote:

Quote:

3) How did he get the information about Valerie Plame's secret identity as a CIA agent and the fake report insinuating that she suggested her husband investigate concerns over yellowcake from Niger? Who gave it to him? Why? How is he involved?

You wrote:

Quote:

Ummm...maybe because he ACTUALLY IS A REPORTER??? I know you seem to have trouble getting past the whole "gay prostitutes cannot be reporters" thing, but TRY.

Again with the ad hominem attacks. I don't believe I ever asserted that "gay prostitutes cannot be reporters." In fact, I applaud GannonGuckert if he tried to leave behind his life of prostitution to become a respected reporter. However, he wasn't actually a reporter. His news "reports" were published only on a website with no readership, and were in fact more or less copied verbatim from White House press releases. Actually, people initially started digging around about him when it was discovered that his news pieces literally just copied straight from White House press releases.

Furthermore, you never answered my question. There is currently a grand jury investigation into how Judith Miller, Matt Cooper, and Robert Novack, three respected journalists with actual degrees who work for real news outlets like the Times, Time Magazine, and the Washington Post, all recieved this same information regarding Valerie Plame. So even if GannonGuckert was a real journalist, I'd still ask this question. However, the fact that this guy may have been a plant from within the White House and may have gotten this information from someone also within the White House suggests possible foul play on a grand scale.

I wrote:

Quote:

4) Was the White House involved in getting him into the White House Press Corps in order to have him ask easy questions? There doesn't seem to be a way in which he could not have a background check without orders from the top ordering that there not be one.

You wrote:

Quote:

Having recently been through a background check myself (not for the White House, but for a job in the State Judicial Branch), I know that it can take practically forever. Getting my fingerprint cards "run" took over a month. So why would a background check be required? Isn't running them through metal detectors enough? And how do you know that a cursory background check (akin to a NICS check) wasn't run?

No, running people through metal detectors is not enough. Read the Dowd piece I quoted earlier; this will fill you in on all the things you apparantly missed. Dowd is a famous, respected editorialist for the most well-regarded newspaper in America, and had to wait months for a background check to be run. Why didn't GannonGuckert, who amongst other things flagrantly violated the law by allegedly engaging in prostitution and who had outstanding taxes owed? I'm saying that if a background check was run, it was incompetently done, because no reporter would have gotten in to the White House Press Corps with his background.

I wrote:

Quote:

5) Is GannonGuckert just another example of the White House trying to secretly influence the fourth estate through such means as creating propaganda that appears to be a news report, ordering the Social Security Administration to tell recipients that there won't be any money for them, and paying journalists such as Armstrong Williams money to advocate for policies on their behalf without disclosing the arrangement?

You wrote:

Quote:

Damn, I never thought of that...who would EVER have thought that the President of the United States ( >COUGH< "I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky" fingerjab fingerjab >COUGH COUGH< ) would ever try to influence the media???

Clinton lied to the media. Bad Clinton. Bush has lied to the media repeatedly. in addition, he tried to subvert the very idea of a free press by creating pieces in favor of his programs that pretend to be news reports, pays journalists under the table to support his programs, etc. The former is bad, and Clinton got punished; what Bush did is try to make the media little more than the propoganda wing of his government. Additionally, Clinton lying to the media is entirely different that Bush trying to unduly influence the media.

I think that if you read the Dowd piece, daswig, and carefully read what I actually wrote, you would understand my arguments better.

host · 03-08-2005, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

Probably for the same reason I thought Barney Frank's "roommate" running a gay escort service out of the basement of Frank's DC home was immaterial.

So what you're saying is that Congress shall pass a law regulating who is classified as a reporter or not? I can think of 1 minor Constitutional obstacle...

A free press means exactly that. It must be FREE. Even if that means that what YOU view as a "non-reputable" news service exists, or if they send somebody that YOU don't think of as being a "reporter" to cover a story. I'm pretty sure that a presidential press conference is "news", wouldn't you say?

Ah, we're going with the "impartial" New York Times...yup, they have NO history of employing journalistic WHORES there, do they... >COUGH< Jayson Blair >COUGH<

Absolutely. It also exposes your anti-prostitute bias. BTW, you DO realize that you're accusing him of committing a criminal act (prostitution), right? When and where was he convicted of this crime? Ever hear of "innocent until proven guilty"? And it certainly SEEMS like your apparently unsubstantiated accusation is not only not made with an absence of malice, it seems downright deliberately malicious. But if that issue came up, it would be for a jury to decide...

Prolly the same way the rest of the press whores got their day passes....they requested a daypass.

You DO know that they generally allow all kinds of people into the White House, right? Even non-reporters can take the tour...

So a reporter asking inane questions is now a criminal act??? So when do those reporters go to prison who ask questions like "Your entire family just got eaten and killed by a Tornado. How do you feel?"

You don't think EVERY President knows who the tough and who the easy reporters in the room are? Is this somehow criminal?

Ummm...maybe because he ACTUALLY IS A REPORTER??? I know you seem to have trouble getting past the whole "gay prostitutes cannot be reporters" thing, but TRY.

Having recently been through a background check myself (not for the White House, but for a job in the State Judicial Branch), I know that it can take practically forever. Getting my fingerprint cards "run" took over a month. So why would a background check be required? Isn't running them through metal detectors enough? And how do you know that a cursory background check (akin to a NICS check) wasn't run?

Damn, I never thought of that...who would EVER have thought that the President of the United States ( >COUGH< "I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky" fingerjab fingerjab >COUGH COUGH< ) would ever try to influence the media???

/obvious sarcasm tag

daswig, News reports of Guckert's gay male escort activities are well documented and include screen shots from his websites and about the
rates that he was charging his clients.

It has also been reported that President Bush, a man who ignored a member
of the press who is considered a White House press corp institution, covering the administrations of nine U.S. presidents, by refusing to call on her to ask a question during any of his news conferences in the last several years, yet
called on "Gannon/Guckert" by his fake first name during a January news conference, made these curious comments to an aid of Canadian PM Paul Martin:

Quote:

<a href="http://paulmartintime.ca/mediacoverage/000149.html">http://paulmartintime.ca/mediacoverage/000149.html</a>
Bush prefers Martin spokesman to his own
posted: January 16, 2004
by Jane Taber, Globe and Mail

Ottawa — This is the tale of the two Scotts — one American, the other Canadian. One is dark-haired, the other blond. Both are 35 and both work for the most powerful men in their respective countries.

Scott McClellan is the press secretary to U.S. President George W. Bush; Scott Reid is the senior strategist to Prime Minister Paul Martin.

But, according to Mr. Bush, Mr. Martin has the prettier Scott.

Indeed. Welcome to a new era of “pretty face” Canada-U.S. relations.

This is what happened:

Mr. Bush met Mr. Reid earlier this week at the summit in Monterrey, Mexico, just after the President's breakfast with Mr. Martin.

Mr. Reid was not initially in the hotel room where the two leaders and their closest advisers met, but was called in to brief the Prime Minister at the end as the group waited for the media.

Mr. Bush wandered over during Mr. Reid's chat with the Prime Minister. Mr. Reid introduced himself and shook hands with Mr. Bush.

“Well, what do you do for this guy?” the President asked as he pointed to the Prime Minister.

“Well, you know, sir, I can't really say,” Mr. Reid said. “It's not that I don't want to. It's just that, you know, I don't really know from day to day.”

This is true. Mr. Reid handles a number of files and performs a number of different duties, depending on the issue and the day.

The President chuckled. “Well, you got a pretty face,” he told the surprised Mr. Reid. He wasn't done. “You got a pretty face,” he said again. “You're a good-looking guy. Better looking than my Scott anyway.”

This is true. His Scott has a receding hairline and is on the chubby side, while Mr. Martin's Scott has a full head of hair and is quite fit.

For the first time in his life, Mr. Reid had no reply. “I didn't know what to say,” said Mr. Reid, noting later that he wished that Mr. Bush had referred to him as a “rugged-looking young man or something.

“But I'll take what I can, I guess,” he joked. “When a Texas Republican says you've got a pretty face, then I guess there is just no way around it

daswig, the hypocrisy of this administration is what the Gannon/Guckert story is about. Belittle it, taunt those of us who post about it, but it isn't going away.

The SD Argus Leader, up until March 6, had remained silent about Gannon. That is no longer the case. The nine year old Clinton/Lewisnky matter that you cite is an example of what can happen when the press goes on a frenzy about a story. The fact that you still bring it up with such enthusiasm should impress on you the implications that this story holds, especially if it gets the in depth reporting that it deserves. I think that you reveal your concern through the chiding volume of your protests.

NCB · 03-08-2005, 12:58 PM

BTW, was Gannon really a marine?

If he weren't I'd be more pissed about him posing as one rather than being upset about him accurately quoting Democratic leaders in a question to the Prez

daswig · 03-08-2005, 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guy44

Where did I say that Congress should pass a law to define what a member of the press is? Anywhere? No. Seriously - please reply and show me exactly where I included any statement about Congress passing a law about anything, let alone about officially defining what a reporter is? I said that GannonGuckert couldn't meet the standards the Congressional Press Corps holds for allowing press members in, and wondered why the White House Press Corps standards are apparantly lower. It is not unreasonable to expect some basic standards; after all, there is limited amount of room in the Press Corps. I never suggested GannonGuckert shouldn't be allowed to act as a reporter, or publish, or gain access to sources or anything else. Simply that he got into the White House Press Corps despite not meeting the standards that the Press Corps itself set, not me. Please stop suggesting that I support something that I clearly do not.

So you're NOT saying that there should be arbitrary standards set for who is "the press" and who isn't? And you're saying that the "white House Press Corps" controls who has access to presidential press conferences? Can you cite the constitutional authority for this?

Quote:

In this case, I quoted someone who's veracity as a journalist and editorialist has never been questioned. The New York Times is far from perfect, and I'm on the front lines of people who believe that Judith Miller, the Times reporter, should be fired. Still, the NYT has the greatest distribution in the country and remains the most respected news source in America. Dowd is an exceptionally well-regarded editorialist. Engaging in ad hominem attacks on the Times while avoiding Dowd's points simply lowers the standards of debate on these boards.

The New York Times is an incredibly biased rag that reports it's editorial policy as "news". One way you can add "journalistic credibility" to the NYT is to use it for your puppy to shit on. It's THAT bad. Your quoting it as a reliable source is the equivalent to a Freeper quoting CNS or Ann Coulter as a reliable news source.

Quote:

Furthermore, and let me clear here: she is an editorialist. I quoted an editorial. So when you ridicule the NYT as "impartial," I suggest that whatever qualms you may have about its news division, you should not summarily dismiss biased editorial pieces. Because they are supposed to express the opinion of the author, not report news in an unbiased manner. As far as I'm concerned, Dowd raised excellent questions and further raises doubts as to GannonGuckert's ability to gain access to the White House Press Corps without help from the White House. If you have particular information regarding her exploits regarding attempts to gain access to the White House Press Corps, or specific reason to believe she may not be telling the truth, please do share them. If not, please try to not dismiss Dowd offhand.

So you're saying that we should ignore the biased "news articles", and instead
go with the even MORE biased propaganda, oops, I mean "editorials"?

Quote:

First of all, please don't call me homophobic. You don't know anything about me, and yet you would dare insult me in this manner? Hundreds of thousands of liberals and several Congressmen and Congresswomen, including several Senators, have demanded an investigation into GannonGuckert's White House Press Corps access. Does that make us all homophobic? I'm sure you were just trying to make a point, but I'd appreciate an apology.

Secondly, calling him a "gay male prostitute" is descriptive. I don't particularly care that the type of prostitute he is is "gay" and "male," but those adjectives are simply descriptive. It does NOT insinuate that it is wrong to be a gay male.

So where is his conviction for prostitution? Your whole argument is homophobic. You say that it's wrong for what you describe as a "gay male prostitute" to be allowed into the White House, despite the fact that he's never been convicted of prostitution. You don't ewven throw in the weasel-word "alleged". Since he has NOT been convicted of prostitution, the only possible reason for your animosity must be that he's a gay male.

Quote:

Thirdly, damn straight I have an anti-prostitute bias. I believe that prostitution is dehumanizing and degrading. You can feel free to hold a differing opinion, but this is mine.

Please provide a cite for his conviction for prostitution, which is generally defined as selling sex for money. I'd have far more credibility claiming that Senator Robert Byrd is a Klansman. He's admitted as much, although now he claims to have repudiated it. Has whatever his name is admitted to being a prostitute?

Quote:

Fourthly, you are right - I should have added that GannonGuckert is allegedly a prostitute. I will still refer to the websites that he ran and operated, posted his picture on, and ran, at the very least, an escort service from. I assume that he was prostituting himself, based on the evidence and language used on his website. However, I will add that he is accused of or allegedly a prostitute, not convicted of such, from now on.

Ever heard of "slander" or "libel"? You ASSUME he's a prostitute. Some people ASSUME that all Italians are in the Mafia. That doesn't make it true.

Quote:

I will now present the case for him being a prostitute, though I leave it for readers to determine for themselves. Take these images, all from GannonGuckert's website, for what you will:
I report. You decide.

Please quote the language where he says he will engage in sexual acts for money. Selling companionship is not illegal. Selling sex is. You're accusing him of a very specific crime with a very specific definition, and you cannot back it up.

Quote:

Please read Maureen Dowd's editorial on the difficulties of attaining a day pass. I conveniently quoted the relevant passages in my original post. Additionally, non-reporter's don't get to attend White House press conference, don't get to ask the Press Secretary or the President questions during them, and sure as hell don't get called by their first name by the President.

I'd suggest that people with a flagrantly anti-Bush bias are less likely to get a day pass easily than somebody who writes positive articles about Bush. I never saw Ann Coulter with a day pass during the Clinton years, did you?

Quote:

I don't know the law well enough to know if this is criminal. It is immoral, subversive, and propogandist if the White House planted a reporter in the White House Press Corps for the specific purpose of asking easy questions.

I do know the law. It's not criminal. Hell, it's not even CLOSE to criminal. I'm wondering what your opinion of journalists during FDR's and JFK's administrations are. After all, they didn't ask the "hard questions", like "when did you know Pearl Harbor was going to be attacked, and why didn't you at least order an alert?" or "why are you in that wheelchair?" or "how many painkillers are you taking?" or "how many women besides Marilyn Monroe did you nail while in the White House?"

Quote:

I don't believe I ever asserted that "gay prostitutes cannot be reporters." In fact, I applaud GannonGuckert if he tried to leave behind his life of prostitution to become a respected reporter. However, he wasn't actually a reporter. His news "reports" were published only on a website with no readership, and were in fact more or less copied verbatim from White House press releases. Actually, people initially started digging around about him when it was discovered that his news pieces literally just copied straight from White House press releases.

So you're saying that publicizing press releases isn't actually journalism? Please cite the code section that states that. Jerry Springer isn't "respected", neither is "Whorealdo" Rivera. Does that mean that they are not journalists? How large of a circulation does a media outlet have to possess in order to be "valid", and where is the code section that spells this out?

Quote:

Furthermore, you never answered my question. There is currently a grand jury investigation into how Judith Miller, Matt Cooper, and Robert Novack, three respected journalists with actual degrees who work for real news outlets like the Times, Time Magazine, and the Washington Post, all recieved this same information regarding Valerie Plame. So even if GannonGuckert was a real journalist, I'd still ask this question. However, the fact that this guy may have been a plant from within the White House and may have gotten this information from someone also within the White House suggests possible foul play on a grand scale.

A grand jury can investigate absolutely ANYTHING they want. They can, if they so choose (generally at the request of a prosecutor) investigate if peanuts (you know, those little nuts that come in cans or packets distributed on airplanes) are a Schedule 3 Narcotic. That doesn't mean that they are, or that any illegal activity occurred. I understand that you don't know anything about the law, but I thought this kind of thing was covered in a BASIC high-school level government class. You seem to think that media leakage is something that Bush 43 invented. It's not. Read up on the Pentagon Papers if you don't believe me.

Quote:

No, running people through metal detectors is not enough. Read the Dowd piece I quoted earlier; this will fill you in on all the things you apparantly missed. Dowd is a famous, respected editorialist for the most well-regarded newspaper in America, and had to wait months for a background check to be run. Why didn't GannonGuckert, who amongst other things flagrantly violated the law by allegedly engaging in prostitution and who had outstanding taxes owed? I'm saying that if a background check was run, it was incompetently done, because no reporter would have gotten in to the White House Press Corps with his background.

Why not? He'd never been convicted of a crime, had he? You're basically trying to say that people should be judged on innuendo and assumption. That's NOT how our system is supposed to work. Whatshisname had a history of providing positive media coverage to the president. Most Liberal reporters direct quite a bit of venom at Bush, Dowd most CERTAINLY included. Ask yourself this from a Secret Service perspective: Which person do you subject to more scrutiny? The one who vocally and rabidly hates your principal, or the one who really likes your principal? Dowd is a purveyor of "political hackery" on a massive scale. The fact that you're trying to pass her off as some kind of plastic saint of journalism is deliciously telling.

Quote:

Clinton lied to the media. Bad Clinton. Bush has lied to the media repeatedly. in addition, he tried to subvert the very idea of a free press by creating pieces in favor of his programs that pretend to be news reports, pays journalists under the table to support his programs, etc. The former is bad, and Clinton got punished; what Bush did is try to make the media little more than the propoganda wing of his government. Additionally, Clinton lying to the media is entirely different that Bush trying to unduly influence the media.

Actually, if you read the law, you'll find that the President has almost no control on the media. The only thing he controls is ACCESS to his person. You seem to think that reporters have some God-given RIGHT to have access to the President. You're wrong. The President has NO obligation to tell the media ANYTHING. Bush would be within his rights if he only allowed people who wrote for the CSM access to him. In fact, if the President literally sequestered himself in the White house and spoke to nobody but his staff and the Congress one a year at the SOTU, he'd be within his rights.

A free press means one without governmental controls. The government has no obligation to provide information to reporters any further than what is required by FOIA. And I'd suggest that if the media has become so dependent on information handouts as you suggest, that THEY are not acting as a free press. What ever happened to investigative journalism? If you expect people to spoonfeed you, you have no grounds to be upset when they spoonfeed you.

Clinton did EXACTLY the same thing as you accuse Bush of doing in trying to use the media to his advantage. How many times did he "wag the dog" to try and deflect media attention from the whole "Blue Dress" issue? Clinton was never punished for lying to the media or the American people (that's his RIGHT), he was impeached for lying under oath in court (which is a crime). There's a HUGE difference. After THK's infamous "shove it" bit with the reporter, how often was he allowed in her presence again?

guy44 · 03-08-2005, 10:13 PM

daswig, I'm not going to debate you on the substantive issues because I've already got three posts in this thread discussing my position. I'd just be repeating myself. Anyone who is interested in my opinion can just look above.

However, I am going to ask you one last time: stop calling me homophobic. Seriously. I posted GannonGuckert's web pics above, and I believe that the chances that he isn't a prostitute are infinitely small. You know, you absolutely know, that I don't care that he is gay. I told you that calling him a "gay male" prostitute was for descriptive purposes only - I would have exactly the same level of outrage if he were straight.

If you want to take issue with his innocence and guilt, fine. I'll be the first one in line to apologize for calling him a prostitute if, in fact, he wasn't. But do not ever again call me homophobic.

daswig · 03-08-2005, 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guy44

However, I am going to ask you one last time: stop calling me homophobic. Seriously. I posted GannonGuckert's web pics above, and I believe that the chances that he isn't a prostitute are infinitely small. You know, you absolutely know, that I don't care that he is gay. I told you that calling him a "gay male" prostitute was for descriptive purposes only - I would have exactly the same level of outrage if he were straight.

Then why didn't you repeatedly use descriptive terms like "white", "bald", or any other adjective for descriptive purposes? Why the emphasis on "gay male" over and over and over again???

You say "the chances that he isn't a prostitute are infinitely small". Fine. Cite his convictions for prostitution. Cite a single person who has come out with a shred of credible evidence that he actually paid whatshisname money to have sex. You can't, and you KNOW you can't, but you still keep on insisting that he is. This flies in the face of bedrock principles of the US Judicial system, like "innocent until proven guilty". It also may be tortious (I doubt he'd be interested in pursuing it, since he's been so spectacularly "outed", and undoubtedly doesn't want to further publicize his sexual orientation). I suppose that all of the people pictured on the "Tittie Boards" are all prostitutes in your book too, right?

I've met some real live hard-core racists in my day. Most of them, if asked "are you a racist?" would deny it. I think they'd deny it honestly, simply because they can't face that flaw in their personality. The same generally holds true of homophobes, in my experience.

guy44 · 03-08-2005, 10:53 PM

OK, last time ever. I'm not homophobic. Don't say it or insinuate it. I referred to him as a "gay male" prostitute rather than a "white bald" prostitute because I felt that the former collection of adjectives describes him better - and with whom he may engage in illegal activities - than the latter. No other reason.

Secondly, the benefit of me not being the US Judicial System is that my opinion's don't have to follow its bedrock principles. I believe O.J. Simpson is a killer, the judicial system didn't. Does that make me racist?

Thirdly, GannonGuckert was NOT "outed." He posted his picture and information regarding his homosexuality on a public website with the express intent of having others look at it. Ipso facto, he wasn't outed but in fact let all the world see everything he posted online.

Fourthly, I can't believe you are still harping on this "innocent until proven guilty" thing even AFTER I apologized and agreed to refer to him as an alleged prostitute, which is a 100% true fact. What more do you want me to do?

Fifthly, despite the evidence I presented and the fact that I agreed to refer to hiim as an alleged prostitute, maybe you are right. Maybe I was "accusing him of a very specific crime with a very specific definition, and you cannot back it up." Maybe I did engage in "'slander' or 'libel'? You ASSUME he's a prostitute. Some people ASSUME that all Italians are in the Mafia. That doesn't make it true."

But I'll tell you what. Every time - three, by my count - that you call me homophobic without being able to "back it up" with any proof you are being libelous. You ASSUME I'm homophobic. That doesn't make it true.

I would have debated just the issue. I don't believe that I have ever engaged in ad hominem attacks upon you, and if I have, I'm sorry. But you don't know a single thing about me, and I'm telling you right now - don't you ever call me a homophobe again.

scout · 03-09-2005, 02:26 AM

The White House was probably scared that if they didn't allow a bald white gay male prositute blogger in and allow him to ask a few questions the Democrats would have a heyday with that

. A bald white gay male prositute blogger has to be a member some minority group. So you see the Republicans are damned if they do and damned if they don't....... much like the Democrats during the Clinton years.

tecoyah · 03-09-2005, 03:10 AM

Tecoyah seriously considers coming back in here with a vengence.

Bookman · 03-09-2005, 05:36 AM

Point blank...this guy had no credentials/security clearance and he lobbed softballs at Bush repeatedly. NOw when Bush was in Germany there was a town hall style meeting with students which was cancelled because Bush's people required that the questions were scripted.

THERE IS SOMETHING TERRIBLY WRONG!!!!!!!

02-26-2005, 01:23 AM	#3 (permalink)
chickentribs Addict Location: Mansion by day/Secret Lair by night	I agree that this should be bigger news, Host. Unfortunately it hits a little too close to home for any of the press to want to pursue this aggressively - it diminishes credibility of the Press Corp as a whole. Thanks for the articles... __________________ Oft expectation fails... and most oft there Where most it promises - Shakespeare, W.

02-26-2005, 04:07 PM	#4 (permalink)
guy44 Somnabulist Location: corner of No and Where	Please, NCB, the blogosphere just did what the MSM (mainstream media) didn't. Guckert was a male gay prostitute with no journalistic experience or credentials who got access to the White House Press Corps on behalf of a phony news organization and got to ask the President and his press secretary questions. He was denied access to the Congressional Press Corps because he was so unqualified! And yet he got into the White House. Oh, and the fake news company he worked for is owned and operated by the same guy who runs GOP USA, which as you might imagine has some slight bias issues. So how did this guy get into the WH? Why wasn't he screened? How did the Bushies know to call on him for easy softball questions? This is a real story - its just more bullshit from the Bush WH. Oh - and you may not think this is a real story, but apparantly some Congressmen do, as they've demanded an investigation. __________________ "You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

02-26-2005, 04:30 PM	#6 (permalink)
chickentribs Addict Location: Mansion by day/Secret Lair by night	A new reporter is given full White House access priviledges and VIP treatment in seating priority and is singled out for questions consistantly, even though no other journalist in the room has met him before... Finally, as reporters are known to do, someone digs a little into his background, and turns up that he has neither the education, credentials or even the name that appeared on his White House pass. He does have many ties to the RNC though, and publishes a neo-blog once a week on the net. Aside from whatever Federal laws were broken for lying on his clearance applications - it could look like McClellan set up a stooge to ask the softball questions he preferred when he didn't want to answer real questions. Freedom of Press and all... __________________ Oft expectation fails... and most oft there Where most it promises - Shakespeare, W.

02-27-2005, 11:27 AM	#18 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	it appears that conservatives have become so used to living in an ideological echo chamber that the details of how things work inside of it are not interesting to them. let's see for example, from the old days when the right was still in opposition, their tactics included: fake social movements developed by the christian coalition and later tobacco companies that used a switching mechanism--canvasserrs could cold call, discuss a political issue, ask if you would like to speak with a congress person and then put you straight through--works to give the illusion of massive active support when the key is in fact a switch. a style of self-confirming propaganda enframing: the likes of limbaugh, loyal transmission belts for propositions worked out at the level of think tanks (heritage, hoover, aei, cato, the list goes on) claim to speak for all americans, to themselves be in a position to dfein who and what america is. there is never any dissent: it is a self-enclosed, self-referential, self-confirming political environment. conservatives like that. makes them feel part of something Big. the pathological, relentless demonization of clinton etc. within this echo chamber world, etc etc since bushworld was handed the gift of 9/11/2001--the kind of gift that would seem to confirm to someone like bush that he is in fact on a mission from some god---a gift, a wedge around which its more authoritarian aspects could enter into the political fray--the gift that keeps on giving because it, more than anything else, explains how bush could possibly have been re-elected.... systematic propaganda in favor of totally unnecessary, unjustified and unjustifable miliatry adventurism. campaign after campaign to label any and all opposition unamerican, unpatriotic, blah blah blah--starting with the ludiucrous assault on france for opposing the fradulent case the administration tried to foist on the unsc, to more recent campaigns like those demonizing michael moore, etc. total control over the press--through pooling, through limiting access, through screening of questions, etc.: the gannon thing is just a small part of this. the point of control of press access: the creation of the illusion of unanimity---in the grand tradition of leni riefenstahl's "triumph of the will"--the Nation unified around Miltiary Values and the Person of the Leader.... the right might be politically vacant, an authoritarian political movement where the term democracy is bandied about on orders from the top--but they have figured out how to develop an impressive media apparatus. as much as i loathe karl rove--as much as i understand him of being the worst, most debased type of political operative---you got to hand it to the guy--at the level of tactics, he is good. he certainly has chumped many conservatives into forgetting that their politics functions logically only within this media shell. fake reporters fake memos leaked to networks in order to then be discredited (bush and the "problem" of vietnam...the "problem" for flag waving rightwingers that should have been posed by his chicken-hawk past--all resolved by a clever, nasty rove-trick fake questions fake answers fake rationale for war fake president fake politics __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 02-27-2005 at 11:31 AM..

03-08-2005, 10:13 PM	#33 (permalink)
guy44 Somnabulist Location: corner of No and Where	daswig, I'm not going to debate you on the substantive issues because I've already got three posts in this thread discussing my position. I'd just be repeating myself. Anyone who is interested in my opinion can just look above. However, I am going to ask you one last time: stop calling me homophobic. Seriously. I posted GannonGuckert's web pics above, and I believe that the chances that he isn't a prostitute are infinitely small. You know, you absolutely know, that I don't care that he is gay. I told you that calling him a "gay male" prostitute was for descriptive purposes only - I would have exactly the same level of outrage if he were straight. If you want to take issue with his innocence and guilt, fine. I'll be the first one in line to apologize for calling him a prostitute if, in fact, he wasn't. But do not ever again call me homophobic. __________________ "You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'" Last edited by guy44; 03-08-2005 at 10:15 PM..

03-06-2005, 06:59 AM	#20 (permalink)
Codename47 Upright	Wow, that NCB guy just got stomped like the bad joke that he is

03-07-2005, 09:03 PM	#22 (permalink)
daswig Banned Location: BFE	Are there statutorily defined definitions of who composes "the press" and who does not? I've had articles published in various small newspapers (and no, they were not editorials or letters to the editors). Does that mean I'm a member of the press? How about if I'm working on an article? Is a freelance reporter a member of "the press"? Do you have to be published to be a member of "the press"? Is there some secret press ID card or handshake that you have to have or know? All this story shows is how desperate some on the left are. And I can't express how ironic I find it that the left is up in arms about a guy who had a gay-oriented website being a member of "the press". Their behavior makes it seem like they think there's something WRONG with homosexuality or commerical porn websites. I guess it's kind of like Packwood...NOW loved him, even when he was serially abusing women.

03-07-2005, 10:34 PM	#26 (permalink)
matthew330 Banned	...riveting... (aren't you bored yet?)

03-08-2005, 06:14 AM	#27 (permalink)
samcol Junkie Location: Indiana	This makes one wonder how many other fake or paid reporters that are out there working for the Republicans or Democrats.

03-08-2005, 10:53 PM	#35 (permalink)
guy44 Somnabulist Location: corner of No and Where	OK, last time ever. I'm not homophobic. Don't say it or insinuate it. I referred to him as a "gay male" prostitute rather than a "white bald" prostitute because I felt that the former collection of adjectives describes him better - and with whom he may engage in illegal activities - than the latter. No other reason. Secondly, the benefit of me not being the US Judicial System is that my opinion's don't have to follow its bedrock principles. I believe O.J. Simpson is a killer, the judicial system didn't. Does that make me racist? Thirdly, GannonGuckert was NOT "outed." He posted his picture and information regarding his homosexuality on a public website with the express intent of having others look at it. Ipso facto, he wasn't outed but in fact let all the world see everything he posted online. Fourthly, I can't believe you are still harping on this "innocent until proven guilty" thing even AFTER I apologized and agreed to refer to him as an alleged prostitute, which is a 100% true fact. What more do you want me to do? Fifthly, despite the evidence I presented and the fact that I agreed to refer to hiim as an alleged prostitute, maybe you are right. Maybe I was "accusing him of a very specific crime with a very specific definition, and you cannot back it up." Maybe I did engage in "'slander' or 'libel'? You ASSUME he's a prostitute. Some people ASSUME that all Italians are in the Mafia. That doesn't make it true." But I'll tell you what. Every time - three, by my count - that you call me homophobic without being able to "back it up" with any proof you are being libelous. You ASSUME I'm homophobic. That doesn't make it true. I would have debated just the issue. I don't believe that I have ever engaged in ad hominem attacks upon you, and if I have, I'm sorry. But you don't know a single thing about me, and I'm telling you right now - don't you ever call me a homophobe again. __________________ "You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

03-09-2005, 02:26 AM	#36 (permalink)
scout Psycho	The White House was probably scared that if they didn't allow a bald white gay male prositute blogger in and allow him to ask a few questions the Democrats would have a heyday with that . A bald white gay male prositute blogger has to be a member some minority group. So you see the Republicans are damned if they do and damned if they don't....... much like the Democrats during the Clinton years.

03-09-2005, 03:10 AM	#37 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	Tecoyah seriously considers coming back in here with a vengence. __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

03-09-2005, 05:36 AM	#38 (permalink)
Bookman Insane	Point blank...this guy had no credentials/security clearance and he lobbed softballs at Bush repeatedly. NOw when Bush was in Germany there was a town hall style meeting with students which was cancelled because Bush's people required that the questions were scripted. THERE IS SOMETHING TERRIBLY WRONG!!!!!!!