Constant reader Jesurgislac points to this long-over-due attempt by a blogger to gain access to the White House Press Corp via the method James (Jeff Gannon) Guckert says he gained access:
After about twenty minutes, another officer came out of the guard house and explained that he had just talked with the Press Office: Fishbowl D.C. had officially been denied access for the day. No further reason. He presented us with the Media Affairs phone number scribbled on a napkin. We thanked him and departed.
Everything today was very smooth and very professional. Now we’ll start trying to get in to tomorrow’s gaggle.
Read the whole, apparently to be continued, saga. Oh, and consider this an open thread.
*Thanks to constant reader LizardBreath, I can no longer not mentally pronounce this "Gigi."
So, will the confirmation battle be more heated if Rehnquist retires or if Stevens retires? I think obviously the latter.
When Jonathan Alter — no conservative or Administration friend he — interviewed me last Thursday, he too remarked on how easy it was to get a White House press pass. In his opinion, this angle of the Gannon story is nonsensical. Which matches up with what my right-wing White House press familiars tell me as well.
In his opinion, this angle of the Gannon story is nonsensical.
Well, we’ll see, won’t we? If it’s that easy, the Fishbowl saga will come to an interesting conclusion. If it turns out not to be that easy, we’re back to asking how Gannon/Guckert managed to get one for two years…
No, we probably won’t see. The obsessives on this subject will never regard the collective experience of longtime White House media as trumping the anecdote of a single blogger.
Seems to me that Johnathan Alter would indeed find obtaining a press pass easier than would an unknown hack. Care to test the ultimate power of your celebrity status Tacitus?
re: White House press passes. There are two kinds: Day passes, which are supposedly easy to get (although, if Gannon got one, why didn’t Fishbowl) and permanent passes, which I have it on very good authority, you must be investigated by the Secret Service to get.
Tacitus: The obsessives on this subject will never regard the collective experience of longtime White House media as trumping the anecdote of a single blogger.
That’s an interesting way to put it, Tacitus. It sounds as if, despite your confidence that a day pass really is that easy to get, Fishbowl won’t get one. Why is that?
Sorry, that should be: ” It sounds as if, despite your confidence that a day pass really is that easy to get, you’re also very certain that Fishbowl won’t get one. Why is that?”
Think this through: if the White House press office has been taking lots and lots of flak for how easy it is for any weirdo to get a day pass (pace Edward, who’s correct on the distinction), then why do you think that situation would continue?
When Jonathan Alter — no conservative or Administration friend he — interviewed me last Thursday, he too remarked on how easy it was to get a White House press pass
And of course we are to assume that there is no difference between the treatment by the administration of a well-known journalist and the treatment of a whore with a fake name and no journalism experience. Right.
Luckovich has the best take, 2/27/05 cartoon, on the press pass issue.
Frankly, I don’t care what Alter thinks; press passes are not handed out willy nilly to any hack that walks up and asks for one. Gannon had zero credentials and was admitted before he was affiliated with Talon (itself a fake news service). The only relevance of that point is that someone in the White house thought it appropriate to pack the room with a shill.
I guess fake Republican news is not worth commenting on.
Tac, do you believe Gannon received day passes for two years for no other reason than its just so darn easy to get one? You can’t really believe this, its silly.
If not, than why would they single out one guy with no credentials? Who also lobs softballs at the Pres and his press flack?
Some folks aren’t quite getting it: Alter didn’t remark upon how easy it is for Jonathan Alter to get a day pass, but upon how easy it is for anyone in general. And his opinion appears to be the consensus among those in a position to know. (And sorry, I rather doubt dmbeaster is one of them.)
But as I remarked above, the obsessives on this subject will never regard the collective experience of longtime White House media as trumping the anecdote of a single blogger.
Tacitus, if the gloss you put on the alleged consensus was true, the press room would be overrun with wannabe “journalists.” Your assertion that anyone could get in contains its own fallacy — because the press room would then be swamped by ever nutball seeking that stage.
P.S. — Gannon was denied a Congressional press pass; do they have higher standards?
Maureen Dowd had a hard time getting a pass – how odd. And the post-9/11 policy was to not allow the use of day passes to circumvent the vetting system, yet someone with sub-blogging credentials managed to get access to the President having already failed the vetting system – how odd.
Maureen Dowd had a hard time getting a pass
What are you, some kind of “obsessive”?
.
Posting rules, felix, that’s hardly civil.
Should have included the <sarcasm> tags I guess…I was joking, of course, in order to make a point about the use of the term.
felix, I was joking too, for the same reason.
I’ve given you enough flak in the past that perhaps I should have been clearer.
Maybe Maureen should try posting some nude pics on the internet and changing her name…she’s got the lack of journalism skills thing down.
Felix, I believe rilke was also trying to make a point, not at your expense. But now the wit is just too subtle for me.
Tacitus, the political blogosphere has been, nearly since its inception, the exclusive domain of competing obsessives. The good folks at Red State are never afraid to dwell on a point for a while. It’s hardly the insult you’d like it to be.
The Guckert thing doesn’t excite me. We have an open press. I can declare myself a reporter at any time and be nominally correct. I don’t think agitating for the White House to be more exclusive in its credentialing of the press is a good idea. I think it’s the opposite of a good idea, and plays right into Bush’s journophobia. Furthermore, the press secretary isn’t under any obligation to call on hardball journalists as much as he calls on softball journalists. Maybe that’s unfortunate, since it seems to give him a lot of inappropriate leeway to define the press conference, but that’s the way it is. So I’m curious as to what good’s supposed to come out of this. Guckert fired? Great, I doubt it was his primary income, but whatever. The White House embarassed? Good, they should be. But it’s done. And they’re going to find another softball artist to replace Guckert, without an iota of shame.
So I’m curious as to what good’s supposed to come out of this.
The truth, eventually.
Maybe Maureen should try posting some nude pics on the internet
Ack!
Thanks a bunch. Excuse me whilst I go erase that image from my brain…
“The truth, eventually.”
Don’t we have that? Hardcore Republican hack gets press pass and uses it for years to ask vacuous questions that make the President sound good. Ari and Scott call on him a lot, because they know that’s what he’s going to do. What else is there? Am I too far out in front of the hunt?
I don’t think agitating for the White House to be more exclusive in its credentialing of the press is a good idea.
It’s not so much exclusivity of its credentialing of the press, it’s a non-trivial definition of “the press” in the first place. Mind you, I think that’s a subtlety that will be (and already is, oftentimes deliberately) completely lost in the furore.
So, dmbeaster, got a list of everyone who gets a White House day pass? Just wondering.
And speaking of fake news, color me unsurprised that they’d blacklist Dowd. There’s no there there.
So, dmbeaster, got a list of everyone who gets a White House day pass? Just wondering.
I’d imagine the list of those who get a White House day pass every day for two years would be substantially shorter…
What else is there?
What the administration knew about G/G when it credentialed him, and why it gave him a pass when Congress declined to do so. What the relationships were between the organizations he worked for and the administration. Whether G/G had access to classified information as he claimed, and if so, who gave it to him. Who was giving him other inside information (for example, information about the timing of the attack on Iraq). Whether this was a single isolated case or not.
There could be a story there, there might not be. There is still plenty to be look into, though. I don’t think access to press conferences should be more exclusive, but I think the public should have easier access to information about who is asking the questions (like their real names, for instance), who is paying them to ask the questions, and what the relationship between the people asking the questions and the people answering them is.
‘The obsessives’, ‘Some folks aren’t quite getting it’, ‘I rather doubt’
Well, I guess some people really don’t learn from experience. Walk away, guys, it’s not worth the effort.
sidereal:
there’s a couple of reasons to push on the story.
1. the partisan one — it’s embarrassing to the admin.
2. prurient curiosity — how did someone with no credentials get so far so fast? was it just chance? as a result of pillow talk? if so, was he f**king admin. officials who spout anti-gay rhetoric?
the story is not actually particularly newsworthy, but given the vast appetite for trivia (not to mention for turning molehills into mountains) of the media and bloggers, it’s certainly fair game.
“obsessives” — keeping your posts at the usual high level, i see.
Francis
lj, verbum sap, thanks.
lj, are you really objecting to ‘Some folks aren’t quite getting it’ and ‘I rather doubt’? They both seem pretty mild to me.
LJ is a delicate soul, kenB.
Keep pursuing this one, guys. Straight into public irrelevance.
I’m not objecting, merely noting. If I got told I did something wrong, and I respected the fact that the person telling me that may have had a point, I would do my damndest (assuming that I respect that person) to try and avoid a similar situation and I would prefer to have discussions with people who feel the same way. I think there are others who might share my feeling and I was making my observation for their benefit. I mean, if the observation is irrelevant, why bother with the jabs? Sorry if not enjoying people acting out being the playground bully is construed as being too delicate.
considering that none of the posters here actually has any clout with the democratic party, tacitus, must you be so rude?
don’t you have a couple of other dog pounds for throwing that kind of red meat around?
G’morning, Dinkle.
Meanwhile, since this is nominally an open thread, I nearly hurt something laughing when I saw this front-page headline in the PI today. It gets my nomination for the single most unintentionally vulgar headline I’ve ever seen.
Alter didn’t remark upon how easy it is for Jonathan Alter to get a day pass, but upon how easy it is for anyone in general.
How would he know? He is not ‘anyone in general’. He is a well known journalist. Only an unknown can check if nobodies can easily get passes. And that’s what this blogger is doing.
Obsessives in the house?
Don’t make me retell the killer whale artificial insemination story, Catsy.
Its already been done.
http://www.augustafreepress.com/stories/storyReader$2221
Long story short it takes 2 weeks of phone calls for a real journalist to get a day pass for one day.
Wait…it takes two weeks to set up a semi-platonic date between a couple of killer whales?
Personaly (I can’t speak for anyone else.) I’m a mean spirited bastard. What I want from this story is simple. 24/7 coverage by all the networks and cable outlets, front page stories every day, public speculation about how much George W Bush likes it up the poop shute, nightly jokes on Leno, Letterman, Conan, and Craig running for about 10 years. An investigation spending 30 or so million dollars and an impeachment would be nice too…but I’m not greedy, I’ll settle for the preceding.
Oh no one has mentioned the blackmail by foreign powers angle…. I’d also like some talk about that.
felixrayman- We should know who is asking questions in the press room, and what their financial interests are. Normally they are already required to use their real names in the press room. Women who use their maiden names to write their columns, still have to use their married names in the press room. Another case where the regular rules didn’t apply to Gannon.
Do you guys really think there is any there there in this Gannon stuff? No offense chaps, but this is more paranoid and pathetic than the ‘Clinton off’d Vince Foster’ nonsense I used to see from the right. And I really mean no offense (believe it or not).
Thank you for phrasing it much more nicely, Mac. I think it depends on what you mean by ‘there’ (or ‘there there’, I guess) If you mean a massive plot to undermine our way of life, no, not really. But if you mean the sort of hypocrisy that the administration demonstrates relatively constantly, yeah, might be applicable. Of course, we are only going to know if we know all the facts, so I think that all of Gigi’s records, including the forms he signed to apply, the people who vouched for him, etc. should be made public.
A second point is that it demonstrates how gormless the WH press corps is. In fact, anyone who was in the press room should be credited as reporter X who sat in the same room for x amount of time while an obvious story sat next to him/her.
BTW, Frank, I appreciate the sentiment, but discussions of presidential orifices could have easily been left out.
this is more paranoid and pathetic than the ‘Clinton off’d Vince Foster’ nonsense
Back in the day, how many millions do you think would have been spent on the investigation if a whore using a fake name and posing as a journalist for a fly-by-night news organization with links to the Democratic Party claimed to have been given classified CIA documents and other inside information by the Clinton administration, and if the administration had then been caught telling lies about what it knew about the guy?
Is there a there there? During the last couple months, something like half a dozen journalists have been discovered to have undisclosed links to either the White House or the RNC. Even if nothing else comes out, it is a piece in an ugly-looking puzzle. Your presumably heartfelt concern, and the concern of Tacitus, that some people (obsessives, some might call them) may, in a paranoid and pathetic manner, be following a non-story is noted, and is truly touching. I hadn’t figured either one of you for such delicate souls.
Yet I will have to agree with lj here. The facts need to be looked into, information needs to be made public. If it turns out to be a non-story, good.
And if it were just Gannon’s press room shilling, that would be one thing. But it’s Gannon spouting propaganda in question form at press briefings, plus the fake-news propaganda pieces fed to TV stations and broadcast in some markets as actual news, plus journalists writing propaganda on taxpayer dime for publication in newspapers as actual “opinion” pieces, plus folks who actually want to question Bush’s Social Security plans being excluded from the President’s phony town hall meetings. This is a consistent pattern of trying to undermine the public’s ability to inform themselves.
Macallan, Tacitus, doesn’t this pattern bother you? The ends don’t justify these means, do they?
Mac, some of the above view is of a piece with my annoyance or alarm about this.
So, dmbeaster, got a list of everyone who gets a White House day pass? Just wondering.
Dear Tacitus:
Your snark serves no purpose. How about employing simple logic.
Something important to journalists like the White House press room means people will want the ticket, which means that someone has to be a gate-keeper and have some criteria for deciding who gets in. Because not everyone gets to go.
Unless you believe that the White House has trouble attracting people to fill the press conferences, so they let any walk-on attend.
Therefore, it makes no sense to just spout, as you do, that anyone can easily get in. You refer to a journalists who said its easy to get a day pass, but the fair inference from that remark is that its not that hard for regular journalists to apply for and get a day pass. That makes sense and may be perfectly true, but so what. What would he know about the ability of a nobody like Gannon getting a press pass?
The White House has been asked to explain its general criteria for issuing passes — so far, I don’t think they have done so. Whatever has been said does not make sense when applied to Gannon. They have also declined to provide any specifics as to how Gannon got his pass. Ultimately, it is this information that would answer the question, but it has not been released.
Do you guys really think there is any there there in this Gannon stuff?
Ok, I’ll take a (hit off the) crack (pipe).
1) The whole thing is profoundly weird. We’re not talking Russell Mokhiber weird; we’re talking Weekly World News/Rocky Horror Picture Show weird. This guy had no more business being in the White House than a, well, a D.C. streetwalker, and nobody seems to know how he got in. And Talon News/GOPUSA isn’t a conservative website as much as cross between a spam operation and Nixon’s Plumbers. Even weirder is the conventional beltway wisdom that this isn’t considered weird (not unlike a lot of other things that I won’t get into now). The Wash. press’ refusal to even address the Gannon matter is only making this situation worse, encouraging all kinds of Area 51-ish speculation about what the hell’s going on.
2) I’ve long given up on accountability for relatively little things like this, much less matters of consequence. But now we can’t even get a weasely non-denial denial: just a shrug of the shoulders and a “heh.” It’s like our leaders have all turned into those creepy little kids from the Family Circle: “Not me.”
3) We seem to be moving beyond the argument about the press’ liberal bias to a paradigm where the “press” (along with things like “science,” “evidence” “expert”) does not even exist outside of a Platonic ideal. “Reporter” can mean publicist, PR flack, Web wank artist, party stooge, Moonie cultist, Nixonian rat fu*ker or Beltway crack whore. Or even, God forbid, Haloscan hounds.
liberal japonicus: Well, I guess some people really don’t learn from experience. Walk away, guys, it’s not worth the effort.
Oh, conceded. I’m sitting here munching popcorn watching the show.
Speaking of which, Catsy, thanks for the elephant story!
BTW, Frank, I appreciate the sentiment, but discussions of presidential orifices could have easily been left out.
Posted by: liberal japonicus | March 3, 2005 12:59 AM
I respectfully disagree. Half the good jokes will relate to presidential orifaces being used in a manner Republicans believe God did not intend. 🙂
Hmmm wonder if that would be cause for impeachment?
misuse of the presidential oriface.
Or did I mean impactment?
Fishbowl saga
More posts by Eddie, which Tac and Mac gently dismember is that the “fishbowl saga” we are talking about here?
Sorry, Timmy, did Tacitus manage to “dismember” this post? I didn’t notice. (Macallan didn’t even try… ;-))
Worst job in the world…..
elephant masturbator
(bottom right of page)
for me, the most interesting part of the JimJeff story is the fact that the legions of moralizers and their enablers on the right are completely silent about this.
nobody can doubt for a second that their howling and screeching would be deafening, if the president in this situation was a Democrat. we’d hear 24/7 about how this was a perfect example of the moral rot permeating the very soul of the Democratic party; how this is yet another example of how libruls are corrupting the nation; how the left is actively working to destroy the credibility of the presidency; Congress would have seven investigations going at once; demands for impeachment/resignation would be in every op-ed page in the country; etc..
does anyone honestly doubt this ?
does anyone honestly doubt this ?
No. But did you hear Eric Alter said it was easy to get a daypass?
Actually, Cleek, I’ve been thinking about it and it doesn’t surprise me at all.
Redstate actively supports a Senator who thinks lesbians and gays ought not to be allowed to teach in state schools. Anyone who supported George W. Bush for President actively supported a man who thinks lesbians and gays ought not to be allowed to get married. Well, Gannon/Guckert appears neither to have wanted to teach in school or get married. We don’t even know for sure that he’s gay: but if he was, he was putting his sexuality to good hard profitable use, not frittering around wanting to be faithful or loving or loyal to one partner, in an unprofitable kind of way. And then he moved on from his career as a prostitute to work as a real whore, asking dirty questions for money!
What on earth could a good conservative find immoral about that?
I imagine Gannon to be like Pacino’s character in Angels in America. I loved the scene when he tells his doctor he isn’t homosexual just because he has sex with men. To him, a homosexual is a nobody, has no power. He was just a powerful man who happens to have sex with other men.
Any of you guys who have an opinion here actually know if Dowd was applying for the same type of pass that Gannon was?
Ignorance is such bliss…
This whole Jim/Jeff episode has Angel IV written all over it.
I would do my damndest….to try and avoid a similar situation….
Indeed. This is why I’m not referring to your personal life. And ignoring the rest.
considering that none of the posters here actually has any clout with the democratic party….
To the contrary: you (collectively) are the new base. Internet activists are now a major influence in the Democratic Party. Dean isn’t DNC Chair for nothing.
don’t you have a couple of other dog pounds for throwing that kind of red meat around?
Yep. Is this your red-meat-free space? No? Well.
Only an unknown can check if nobodies can easily get passes.
Wrong. Membership in group X is not a prerequisite for objective assessment of group X.
Macallan, Tacitus, doesn’t this pattern bother you?
Yep. It does indeed: even what we publicly know is reprehensible and dumb of the Administration. I just think this day pass nonsense is silly, is all.
You refer to a journalists who said its easy to get a day pass, but the fair inference from that remark is that its not that hard for regular journalists to apply for and get a day pass.
No, the fair inference is that he meant what he said (and to reiterate, it’s not just him saying it): that it’s easy for anyone to do it.
The White House has been asked to explain its general criteria for issuing passes — so far, I don’t think they have done so.
My guess, based upon seeing Executive branch press ops elsewhere, is that there is no standard, written criteria: it’s subjective, based upon the judgment of the gatekeeper in question.
Cleek: You’re right, but is this relevant beyond itself? Not really. Either you disapprove of such behavior, in which case you’re glad it’s not happening; or you approve of it, in which case you’re a hypocrite for complaining about it.
Heet: Eric Alterman <> Jonathan Alter. Thanks for playing.
Fascinating.
I would recommend Hanlon’s Razor in this case, but then that’s just me.
Tacitus: Either you disapprove of such behavior, in which case you’re glad it’s not happening; or you approve of it, in which case you’re a hypocrite for complaining about it.
I think that’s the point Cleek was making, Tacitus (if ze will forgive me for assuming): right-wing hypocrisy run rampant.
Heet: Eric Alterman <> Jonathan Alter. Thanks for playing.
oh snap! I was dissed! Whatever shall I do?
Probably you’ll do nothing.
Jesurgislac, yes: it is indeed hypocritical of the broader right. That’s also irrelevant to the point I was making.
Well, that was the point. Thanks for playing!
I think that’s the point Cleek was making…right-wing hypocrisy run rampant
yes, 100%
That’s also irrelevant to the point I was making.
Ah? So the point you were making was that right-wing hypocrisy is irrelevant? To what? Surely right-wing hypocrisy is very relevant when discussing the Gannon/Guckert scandal?
Either you disapprove of such behavior, in which case you’re glad it’s not happening; or you approve of it, in which case you’re a hypocrite for complaining about it
i’m not complaining about their lack of complaint; i’m complaining about their hypocrisy. i’d just as soon they keep their holier-than-thou mouths shut at all times (censorship! wah!) – keep their proclamations about SpongeBob and other examples of moral decay to themselves.
of course, it shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone here that the Morality Police are hypocrites; but political blogs are special places.
Who’s this “they” you keep referring to, and what relationship (as it were) do “they” have with Gannon? If you’ve got a Dobson/Gannon connection or something of that nature, that’d be juicy indeed.
If you’ve got a Dobson/Gannon connection or something of that nature, that’d be juicy indeed.
Now you are beginning to see why we need Congressional hearings!
Now, that’s not a bad idea. If we can keep Congress tied up in hearings, maybe no other harm would get done. We’d perhaps not have any new National Midwife’s Day kind of legislation passed for at least a couple of weeks.
Slarti, I think the point is that Dr James Dobson doesn’t seem to have a thing to say about the Bush administration admitting a gay male prostitute to the White House press room, nor a thing to say about all those right-wing pundits now advocating tolerance towards gays (well, towards Gannon/Guckert, at least). Odd, that, since he so strongly objected to SpongeBob SquarePants.
So, cleek was crying hypocrite on Dobson and fellow travelers, rather than the entire Republican party? Odd, it didn’t come off quite that way.
So the point you were making was that right-wing hypocrisy is irrelevant?
Wow, man.
I hate to do the cliched “pox on both houses” thing, but both sides are really letting their biases run away with them regarding this story.
Jes, et al.: Okay, so the G.O.P. planted a softball pitcher in the press room. This is surprising to whom? It’s shady, sure, and given G/G’s other job, the whole thing looks really scandalous. But the conspiracy tendrils kind of disappear when examined – as far as I can tell, Gannon just posted a bunch of press room scuttlebut on Free Republic to make himself look like an insider. Someone bullshitting on FR? Aaaagh! Stop the presses!
Tacitus, et al.: Come on. Obviously they don’t let just anybody into the press room of the West Wing of the White House, every day, for years (including appearances by the President himself) just because they ask politely. Your argument on this point, apparently supported only by a single sentence in an interview with J. Alter (and not the “collective experience of the MSM”), strains credibility, and just looks knee-jerk. This is a legitimate, if minor-league story. It doesn’t look good, but it ain’t going to bring your guy down, either. Telling everybody to shut up about it or risk “public irrelevance” just makes you look scared, more scared than you ought to be, really.
We’d perhaps not have any new National Midwife’s Day kind of legislation passed for at least a couple of weeks.
Speaking on behalf of the American Midwives’ Association, I cannot believe this kind of intolerance is allowed to occur here. If Congress will not stand up and recognize our midwifery, who will? Who, I ask you?!
I have to say even with a National Midwife’s Day, I still wouldn’t recognize a midwife if I saw one.
Wonder what sort of Google ranking this is going to give us for someone looking for a midwife? Midwife midwife midwife.
Obviously they don’t let just anybody into the press room of the West Wing of the White House, every day, for years
st meet Helen Thomas. Helen Thomas this is st. You kids need to chat.
Wonder what sort of Google ranking this is going to give us for someone looking for a midwife?
I wonder to what extent the comments get indexed. Remember that “Journalist Slartibartfast” thing from awhile back? Still 0 results. I wonder if Google stops seeing new comments on a thread after a certain point.
Helen Thomas, let’s see…reporter with 61 years of experience, 57 of them with United Press International, beats included the Federal government, the FBI, and Capitol Hill, covered every President since JFK. I don’t know how sharp-eyed you are, but perhaps you may notice a few small differences between that record and the record of a whore with a fake name and no experience as a reporter?
Slarti: So, cleek was crying hypocrite on Dobson and fellow travelers, rather than the entire Republican party?
Well, certainly crying hypocrite on those Republicans who screamed about Kerry mentioning that Mary Cheney is a lesbian, and who openly supported Jim DeMint (link) – yet who are now blandly claiming that the presence of a gay prostitute pretending to be a journalist in the White House press room is no scandal at all.
How far does this constitute “the entire Republican party”? I don’t know. Perhaps Tacitus could run a poll on Redstate and find out.
Tacitus – “When Jonathan Alter — no conservative or Administration friend he — interviewed me last Thursday, he too remarked on how easy it was to get a White House press pass. In his opinion, this angle of the Gannon story is nonsensical. Which matches up with what my right-wing White House press familiars tell me as well.”
Last weekend, Jim Pinkerton, a former official in the Reagan and Bush I White Houses, said on “Fox News Watch,” no less, that such a feat “takes an incredible amount of intervention from somebody high up in the White House,” that it had to be “conscious” and that “some investigation should proceed and they should find that out.”
We report you decide.
I don’t doubt there has been an investigation and the reason for Gannon/Guckerts privileged access has been determined. I also have no doubt that such information will never become public during the life of this administration or any subsequent R administration.
felixrayman,
Oh, I thought we were talking ’bout partisan hacks having easy access to the White House press room. Apparently the “whore” angle is more important to you. Good luck with that.
“Do you guys really think there is any there there in this Gannon stuff? No offense chaps, but this is more paranoid and pathetic than the ‘Clinton off’d Vince Foster’ nonsense I used to see from the right.”
Well actually I don’t think anything could be more paranoid and pathetic than the ‘Clinton off’d Vince Foster’ nonsense (wasn’t it Hillary who did the deed as part of a satanic ritural also involving the Whitehouse dog?)
But isn’t the whole point or lesson from the Clinton years that the Republican party and the broader right (complete with its looney fringes) was not consigned to irrelevance and political oblivion by the endless scandal mongering? In fact, quite the reverse seems to have occurred.
(How real or relevant or true any individual “scandal” is is not important, nor is how looney the particulars are. Just keep grabbing onto anything that appears, magnify, twist and hammer away. When it fades, repeat and repeat and repeat).
So watching non-looney members of the broader right (Macallan and Tacitus on this thread) tsk-tsking away as the broader left attempts to apply the lesson-learned is more than a little amusing.
Oh, I thought we were talking ’bout partisan hacks having easy access to the White House press room.
No, we were talking about the difference between Helen Thomas and G/G. Apparently you think both a whore with a fake name and no journalism experience and a reporter with 61 years of experience are equally qualified to report on your government. Explains a lot actually. Oh, and good luck with that.
yet who are now blandly claiming that the presence of a gay prostitute pretending to be a journalist in the White House press room is no scandal at all.
Why does his being gay or whatever have to do with anything? Do you know the sexual bent or proclivities of the rest of the people who’ve been in the pressroom over the last 100 years? And you want to talk about hypocrisy? Do I have that correct?
Macallan – Oh, I thought we were talking ’bout partisan hacks having easy access to the White House press room. Apparently the “whore” angle is more important to you. Good luck with that.
You call a lifetime career in journalism “easy access”? whatever you might think of Helen Thomas’s questioning of the President you cannot deny she earned the right to be there. Something, sans person or persons in the WH wanting him to be there, Gannon/Guckert clearly did not.
postit,
Perhaps you had not seen the news, but Ms. Thomas resigned from UPI and retired as journalist in 2000. She followed up her “distinguished” career by writing a barely syndicated column that could be the dictionary definition of partisan hackdom. Yet, she had a front row seat for years after having no credible purpose being in the pressroom. That was the point in response to st’s comment:
Obviously they don’t let just anybody into the press room of the West Wing of the White House, every day, for years
Because obviously they do let some people into the pressroom who have no business being there. Gannon and Thomas appear to be excellent as well as embarrassing examples.
“I still wouldn’t recognize a midwife if I saw one.”
They look a lot like doulas. Doula doula doula.
Mac, HT gets grandmothered in. Even if she hasn’t had the grace to withdraw, she was the lead voice in the press room for generations. Bush shouldn’t call on her if he doesn’t feel like it.
Big difference in my view between “Let’s let the geezer die without humiliating her” and “let’s bring in a zero-qualification ringer in violation of policy and give him extra access”.
Big difference in my view between “Let’s let the geezer die without humiliating her” and “let’s bring in a zero-qualification ringer in violation of policy and give him extra access”.
If that were the case, I might agree with you. However, that would be ignoring Hanlon’s Razor and I haven’t seen any reason yet to do so.
yes, but macallan, Helen Thomas is not “just anybody;” see all of the previous discussion of her extensive credentials, which you are studiously ignoring.
To say nothing of the fact that the presence of Thomas, a lefty partisan, says nothing about (a) what kind of pass helen thomas has, or (b) or what kind of vetting was done on her. As it is pretty safe to say that the amount of vetting done on G/G was, ahem, none at all, beyond perhaps a brief party affiliation check, then I think you can’t compare the two until you have information showing that Thomas got the same light treatment.
Wow, you guys really are scared of this story, aren’t you? Yikes.
Not sure what inconsistency you’re seeing there, Jesurgislac. Care to elaborate?
Still much less of a journalist than Ann (she’s a journalist because Google says she is) Coulter. How humiliating. OTOH, if I’d really wanted to be a journalist, I could have dispensed with the engineering and math.
So, cleek was crying hypocrite on Dobson and fellow travelers, rather than the entire Republican party?
yes.
specifically, the legions of moralizers, and their enablers, on the right. but i don’t think the whole GOP fits into that group.
Oh, and visavis Hanlon’s Razor, frankly, I agree with you. I think the scandal here is that the Bush press folks acted with naked incompetence in the pursuit of their goal – a reliable partisan go-to in the press room. That’s the story. It’s a legitimate story. It is, like I said at 11:59, minor league, but it is legitimate, even seen through the Hanlon lens. You guys are running the country. F**king grow up, take the hit, and move on.
the Bush press folks acted with naked incompetence in the pursuit of their goal
That’s not using Hanlon’s Razor. You’re still assuming malice, that they were pursing a goal, rather than just being stupid. You really need to get a grip, what the heck good does G/G really do the White House? Who ever watched his questions or read his dumb little stories? He influenced exactly zero people.
Wow, you guys really are scared of this story, aren’t you? Yikes.
Oh yes! My quaking is epic! How dare you see through the yawns and uncover my dark sinister intentions… I curse you! Well, actually I don’t. I tried, really I tried, but I just couldn’t muster it. Sorry. I’ll work on it.
“Naked incompetence”. I just felt that needed to be emphasized, laughed at, and optionally followed up with a Whiskey Tango Foxtrot.
I wouldn’t have said exactly. I do know that his name had never, ever crossed my visual cortex before this whole thing came up, but that’s just me.
Good point Slarti,
I just assumed, with me being one of the highest ranking Deathbeasts in the VRWC that since I’d never heard of him…
Just how high are you ranked? Me, I’m a 33rd degree DeathBeast. Are you the boss of me?
Macallan – Who ever watched his questions or read his dumb little stories? He influenced exactly zero people.
Err, you need to read this series of posts linking Gannon to the Thune campaign …
before asserting Gannon influenced zero people
1. Ascribing the WH’s failure to vet G/G to stupidity rather than to some clandestine, unproven, back-door intelligence-leaking/Plame-related scandal, as many on the left have (i think foolishly) chosen to do, is, I think, a rather precise application of Hanlon’s Razor.
2. Point of letting in G/G was not to influence anyone directly, but to give the press secretary and the POTUS a convenient safety valve to deflect strings of more combative questions from those who do influence people. Like I said – not a big deal, but kind of shady. Probably not unique to the GOP, either.
3. Sorry I missed the yawning – it’s a bit hard to hear through all of the indignant posts about how this story doesn’t mean anything and lefties should drop it now now now.
You’re still in Degrees? What? I thought we raised you to a Plane quite a while ago. Dang it, let me see if the paper work got waylaid. 33rd Degree? …hrumpf, with the kind of work you’ve been doing? Somebody’s going to be in deep…
Oh, and great! …There’s going to be some back pay from the raise coming to you that you haven’t been getting. Oh, bother… I’ll get wired to your account right away.
postit,
Do I understand this correctly? In order to set me straight about this nobody internet fake news guy you’ve linked me to “an on-line, advocacy-based news outlet”?
Mac, if he had zero influence/importance, why was he called on consistently? How did he manage to get a daily day pass despite policy? Why did the FBI question him? And see postit‘s March 3, 2005 01:01 PM.
It seems to me that there are some questions of fact here to dispute. I agree with you about the sharpness of Hanlon, but my reading of the facts leads me via the even sharper Occam to the conclusion that the WH wanted a ringer badly enough, and was (justifiably) confident in the density of the real press, to take on someone they under normal circumstances would not want to be associated with.
Anyway, I do acknowledge your position has merit, and if I was a partisan on the other side I might for my own reasons hold it. Perhaps new info will clarify things to the point that we’ll agree.
the conclusion that the WH wanted a ringer badly enough, and was (justifiably) confident in the density of the real press, to take on someone they under normal circumstances would not want to be associated with.
I thought that was FoxNews’ job.
😉
“Never influenced anybody”
Obviously Coulter doesn’t follow the media that closely. Drudge linked to at least one Gannon story, Rush Limbaugh cited Talon News on his radio show, and as Media Matters has documented, Sean Hannity mentioned Gannon by name on his show at least three times, had him on as a guest, and described him as “a terrific Washington bureau chief and White House correspondent for Talon News.”
If you don’t like the site postit linked to, Greg Beato is a little more respected journalist, having been a frequent contributor to Reason, The Village Voice and plenty of other recognized publications.
Macallan – try this,
Greg Beato
Thanks Phil, my bad.
Excellent discussion, to which I can and will add precisely nothing. Well, save to comment on this evokative image from Tacitus:
…. Which matches up with what my right-wing White House press familiars tell me as well.
I’m envisioning a small black cat or a warty toad in a VRWC hat, stationed in the White House press office for fetching various reagents and grimoirs (as well as virginal souls and the like).
So Phil you’re saying that respected journalists such as Beato or Andrew Sullivan run worthy internet sites? Can’t say I disagree with you there, but that does raise a question about how unqualified Gannon is then doesn’t it? Also the fact that this Talon News thing was cited by Limbaugh and Hannity also undermines the Gannon had “no business” being there doesn’t it?
I’d been operating under the assumption that he’s a nobody. If he’s a somebody, if he has readers and influence, then what’s the issue? (a sincere question) It can’t be that he’s overtly partisan because that would eliminate a large chunk of those who frequent the pressroom daily. It can’t be that he’s gay as that would also eliminate people who so far nobody seems to object to. So what is it?
Macallan, you are obviously at some disadvantage having apparently discovered Gannon/Guckert quite late in the day.
At the time he 1st gained access to the WH press briefing under Ari’s reign he had no readers other than fellow commentators at Free Republic and doubtless other like-minded forums because a)Talon didn’t exist tho GOP USA did, and b) he hadn’t published any articles for them to read.
Clearer now?
Frank Rich can point you in the right direction.
Thanks for the background, which is helpful, but that doesn’t answer the query.
What is the actual problem with Gannon?
Macallan – What is the actual problem with Gannon?
The problem is that there is no actual problem with Gannon, apparently!
Slarti: Not sure what inconsistency you’re seeing there, Jesurgislac.
Really? Ah well.
Let me try to explain. We see on the one hand large numbers of Republicans behaving as if John Kerry had slandered Mary Cheney by mentioning that she’s a lesbian. We see on the other hand large numbers of Republicans – possibly with no overlap whatsoever, just happening to belong to the same political party – asserting that the presence of a gay prostitute in the White House press room is no big deal, no kind of scandal at all. Now, if being gay is no big deal, then obviously, Kerry mentioning that Mary Cheney is a lesbian was also no big deal. But that ain’t how the Republicans played it. On the other hand, if being gay is a major deal, and just mentioning it is a scandal, then a gay prostitute being given special treatment by the Bush administration ought to be regarded, by these same Republicans who went crazy about Mary Cheney being an out lesbian, as a major political scandal.
Macallan: Why does his being gay or whatever have to do with anything?
When the Bush administration makes homophobic policies a major plank in their election campaign, yes, it’s a big deal to discover that they have no problem hiring a gay prostitute to work for them as a media whore.
Well Jes, I’m not sure what the means exactly. Are you going on record as saying that the Administration should discriminate against gays in hiring? I…uhm…guess as a matter of “principle”?
“We see on the one hand large numbers of Republicans behaving as if John Kerry had slandered Mary Cheney by mentioning that she’s a lesbian. We see on the other hand large numbers of Republicans .. asserting that the presence of a gay prostitute in the White House press room is no big deal, no kind of scandal at all.”
In this thread the part of sidereal will be played by RWDBereal, his evil twin.
Here are the events:
1) Kerry mentions Cheney’s lesbian daughter. Righties declare that Kerry is Ho Chi Minh’s adopted son because talking about people’s sexuality is bad.
2) Left blogistan mentions Guckert’s gayness. Righties do whatever righties do because talking about people’s sexuality is bad.
That’s actually not hypocrisy, that’s consistency. Here’s the difference: Conservatives (more or less, I’m being intentionally broad here) tend to speak about homosexuality in broad terms as an abstract movement. They tend not to talk about individual gay people. . some probably because they think it’s inappropriate, and some probably because they know talking about individual gay people humanizes them too much. The vague, forboding ‘gay agenda’ is much scarier and much more useful.
Seriously. Less with the ‘OMG he’s gay!’, but keep up with the ‘OMG he’s a prostitute!’. That’s tastefully salacious.
Sidereal: Righties do whatever righties do because talking about people’s sexuality is bad.
Actually, what Righties are doing is saying that G/G’s sexuality is no big deal – the exact reverse of how they treated Mary Cheney’s sexuality. Of course (as far as we know) G/G isn’t the offspring of the Vice President.
Seriously. Less with the ‘OMG he’s gay!’, but keep up with the ‘OMG he’s a prostitute!’. That’s tastefully salacious.
It’s also very funny, as The Poor Man pointed out. A media whore is literally a prostitute! Things don’t get much better…
Actually, what Righties are doing is saying that G/G’s sexuality is no big deal – the exact reverse of how they treated Mary Cheney’s sexuality
Not exactly. I’m wondering why the tolerant left is so obsessed with G/G’s sexuality, and the point on Mary Cheney’s sexuality was that it was no big deal and already well known so why the heck was Kerry going out of his way to bring up?
Hope you found this helpful.
the tolerant left is so obsessed with G/G’s sexuality
you know he’s a prostitute, right? I would say that the bulk of “the tolerant left’s” interest has been focused on that fact.
why the heck was Kerry going out of his way to bring up
Because her father was actively working to render her and everyone who shared her sexuality a 2nd class citizen, maybe?
That said, I have to say that the analogy is a bit of a stretch, Jes.
you know he’s a prostitute, right? I would say that the bulk of “the tolerant left’s” interest has been focused on that fact.
Thanks that’s helpful. So, the tolerant left is against prostitutes changing careers? They think there should be some sort of hiring discrimination against prostitutes? Help me out here.
Do we know that he was a prostitute at the time? Or is it that we know that he was a prostitute before he was a fourth-rate journalist?
I may have the story confused, but I believe that he still had active websites offering his services as of when this story broke, a few weeks ago. Now, things do hang around on the Web, so that’s not proof that he was still working, but there doesn’t seem to be any clear ‘quit hooking and then got a job as a reporter’ career trajectory.
Also, prostitution should be legal. Gannckert should be able to post ads for sex services right next to his silly propaganda. And I should be able to make fun of him for it. Oh wait. . that’s what we’re doing.
The sexiness of it all is distracting you people.
Gannon got in with a fake name. Is it true married women can’t even use their maiden names? Why did Gannon use a fake name? Was he given the Plame leak?
See, there’s some scandal.
o Phil you’re saying that respected journalists such as Beato or Andrew Sullivan run worthy internet sites? Can’t say I disagree with you there, but that does raise a question about how unqualified Gannon is then doesn’t it?
If you can’t understand the difference between Beato’s and Sullivan’s pre-Internet CV and Gannon’s, I’m afraid I can’t help you, Mac. I know you’re capable of understanding it — in fact, I know you do understand it — so why you want to persist in this line of argument is a mystery to me.
Also the fact that this Talon News thing was cited by Limbaugh and Hannity also undermines the Gannon had “no business” being there doesn’t it?
I suppose that’s one way of reading it. Another way of reading it is that some very influential GOP-supporting talking heads found themselves a homegrown hack that they felt they could use as a legitimate “news” source, but who was really there to shill GOP propaganda, and get away with it unchallenged because, hey, he’s in the WH press corps, right? Yet another is to surmise that Limbaugh, Drudge and Hannity aren’t very bright people and, when confronted with a “news” source that a little investigation would have revealed was nothing of the sort, simply ran with it because it confirmed their own biases.
Macallan: I’m wondering why the tolerant left is so obsessed with G/G’s sexuality
Then you should read this thread, where I think it has been adequately explained…
and the point on Mary Cheney’s sexuality was that it was no big deal and already well known so why the heck was Kerry going out of his way to bring up?
Well, not that I can blame you, but it sounds like you didn’t read Redstate’s reaction to it, or listen to Lynne Cheney. But, as I said, it was a peculiarly repellent thread, and Lynne Cheney came across as a horrible mother with no proper pride or love for her daughter, so I can’t blame you for not wanting to pay attention to either.
It wasn’t that Mary Cheney being a lesbian was no big deal. It seems to have been a very big deal indeed to all the Republicans who got angrily offended at Kerry for happening to mention it in an appropriate context.
Yet, somehow, the same hypocrites are going “So he’s a gay male prostitute! No big deal! Why make a thing of it that he advertises his services as a fake-serviceman while simultaneously getting access to the White House press room (and perhaps also fake-serviceman President?)” Gotta wonder… who did G/G blow?
If you can’t understand the difference between Beato’s and Sullivan’s pre-Internet CV and Gannon’s, I’m afraid I can’t help you, Mac. I know you’re capable of understanding it — in fact, I know you do understand it — so why you want to persist in this line of argument is a mystery to me.
I of course understand the difference, but isn’t it a difference without a distinction? Either the internet offers a legitimate news venue or doesn’t. Let me ask you this, would you be freak’n out if Markos Moulitsas was given a day pass to the pressroom?
Uhm Jes… that redstate link (at least the post itself I didn’t bother with the comments) is completely consistent with what I said: the point on Mary Cheney’s sexuality was that it was no big deal and already well known so why the heck was Kerry going out of his way to bring up?
Did you read your own link?
Gotta wonder… who did G/G blow?
Again, what’s with the obsession about his sexuality? I don’t understand how it is germain.
A day pass? That would be kind of cool.
730 day passes in a row as a means of avoiding the background check? Weird, don’t you think?
Again, what’s with the obsession about his sexuality? I don’t understand how it is germain.
Prostitutes have been known to blackmail their johns or be used as double agents. The fact that a prostitute was given an opportunity to come into the White House on a daily basis is surprising. The fact that he was allowed to do so in such a way that the mandatory background check was intentionally ignored, is disturbing. Was this an intentional attempt to evade the law or was it mere incompetence in the security system? Neither option is particularly appealing.
A day pass? That would be kind of cool.
So, you’d have no objection to a ‘net guy with no journalistic CV getting a day pass?
would you be freak’n out if Markos Moulitsas was given a day pass to the pressroom?
If he was given a day pass for two years straight without being vetted, yes.
So, the tolerant left is against prostitutes changing careers? They think there should be some sort of hiring discrimination against prostitutes?
Huh? I don’t care that G/G was hired as a journalist. I do care that he was allowed into the same room as the president with apparently no non-ideological vetting. I certainly think there should be some barriers to entering the same room as the President, if that’s what you mean by discrimination. Prostitutes are criminals, last time I checked.
Moreover, I thought we had seen that he was in the room before there even was a “Talon News” to “hire” him. And moreover, I’m not sure he changed careers – the journalist thing seems to have been more in the nature of a 2nd job.
It was stupid of the press office not to vet their pet. Why is that so hard to admit?
That’s a good point freelunch. Thank God journalists have never been known to blackmail or be used as [cough]Duranty[cough] agents.
It was stupid of the press office not to vet their pet.
It was stupid of the press office not to vet Gannon. I think I mentioned stupidity pretty early on. However, was Gannon treated differently than others who got day passes? Is the claim that they vet everyone else who gets day passes, but didn’t vet Gannon?
Yes, I’m quite certain that whoever does the security clearances did in fact cruise all the gay escort sites, but deliberately failed to notice Gannon’s.
That is your point, isn’t it?
Slarti,
The people downstairs claim your paperwork is held up because you never turned in your penny loafers from 2000.
Damn! Already donated those to charity, too.
And you’re right on the Degrees thing; as a nav guy I really should be advanced in radians.
“Yes, I’m quite certain that whoever does the security clearances did in fact cruise all the gay escort sites”
Trust, but verify.
Yes, Mac, journalists can also be blackmailers and agents, but the real journalists with permanent credentials have had their background checked. How many other journalists got day passes for even one year? It’s hard to believe that the White House rules allow someone to get day passes every day instead of getting vetted for a permanent pass. If that is the case, then we’re back to indefensible incompetence.
Why did the fake journalist who was a prostitute not have his background checked? Had he gotten to someone already? Was he blackmailing someone in the White House?
feelunch, I believe I have a bit of personal experience with background checks, and I can pretty much assure you that unless a friend told on him or he had an arrest for prostitution on his record, there’s absolutely no way they could have known. Can you think of a way they ought to have known?
Again, what’s with the obsession about his sexuality? I don’t understand how it is germain.
I would never dream of suggesting that a journalist who just happened to be a gay man might have to give someone a blow job to get a day pass to the White House press room, Macallan: that’s your mind taking you there, not me.
But I do wonder when a prostitute with no journalistic experience gets 730 day passes in a row to the White House press room… who did he blow to get them?
I mean, short of him having “gay escort” listed as an occupation on his 1040, or some such?
Slarti: Can you think of a way they ought to have known?
I do believe it’s called Google. 😉
Where’s this 730 number coming from, BTW?
First, Google isn’t typically used in clearing people. Second, my understanding is that this would not have worked, in any case. Unless there’s some prescient version of Google that I don’t know about.
Where’s this 730 number coming from, BTW?
I understand G/G got two years of day passes – effectively a permanent day pass. 2 * 365 = 730.
First, Google isn’t typically used in clearing people.
If you mean that no one ever uses the Internet to run security checks on people, I really hope you’re wrong. (If you mean they use a different search engine from Google, you may be right, for all I know.)
Second, my understanding is that this would not have worked, in any case.
Well, yes, it would have worked, because that’s how it did work. (“Google” should be taken as “any effective search engine: obviously I don’t know which search engine turned up the facts about Gannon/Guckert.)
Slart, if prostitution is unlikely to be discovered, why did they go to the effort to avoid the background check? Do you think that more entertaining crimes and problems would have been discovered if G/G had been vetted or do you just think that G/G’s handlers were merely too fearful that his prostitution would have been caught?
Macallan: that’s your mind taking you there, not me.
Yeah it must be me. How else could I interpret “Gotta wonder… who did G/G blow?” as being that you were wondering who G/G gave a blowjob to. Shoot, I’d even interpret ” But I do wonder when a prostitute with no journalistic experience gets 730 day passes in a row to the White House press room… who did he blow to get them?” as just saying the same thing again. Funny that.
You apparently don’t wonder who he paid off, who he’s got pictures of, who he’s a relative of, who he went to school with or who is dating his sister. Nope just who did he blow. Thanks for…err…clarifying.
Actually the question would be who was blowing him. He advertised as a top.
The secret service didn’t mess up here there is no way they would have missed his status as a tax delinquent.
The white house could certainly have found plenty of other hacks to pitch them softballs. Most of them would look more like journalists than Gannon.
Why did they need a gay prostitute in the White House so badly?
Another losing battle that will only make many on the left look like they are grasping for their last breath.
C’mon alteast act like there’s some brains out there… swing the bat at the actual ball… Social Security atleast doesn’t make you guys look so dumb.
Mac, funny thing about his sister. GG keeps talking about his family in this ‘poor me’ whines, and I have yet to see any evidence that he has any family to speak of.
“The people downstairs claim your paperwork is held up because you never turned in your penny loafers from 2000.”
What about the $20,000 you’ve been delinquent on your taxes since then? No, that would be the silly Mr. Guckert, not the witty Slart.
Obviously I’m way behind the curve here…you have some sort of evidence that a background check wasn’t in fact done, and furthermore that it was avoided?
Macallan, I hate to be the one to have to break it to you, but when a prostitute gives a blowjob, it says nothing about the prostitute’s sexuality.
You apparently don’t wonder who he paid off, who he’s got pictures of, who he’s a relative of, who he went to school with or who is dating his sister. Nope just who did he blow. Thanks for … err … clarifying.
Interesting, Mac. Are you suggesting that he bribed or blackmailed his way into the White House press room? (Well, yes, you are – along with three varieties of nepotism.) To me, outright bribery or blackmail strikes me as rather worse than a quid pro quo involving sexual favors for access to the President.
H
Slarti: Obviously I’m way behind the curve here…you have some sort of evidence that a background check wasn’t in fact done, and furthermore that it was avoided?
AFAIK I know, there is no evidence either way. Merely that if a background check was done, it would be interesting to know why they decided it was appropriate to let a gay prostitute posing as a journalist into the White House press room. For two years.
If no background check was done, it would be interesting to know why someone who had, apparently, a permanent day pass to the White House didn’t need a background check.
Macallan, I hate to be the one to have to break it to you, but when a prostitute gives a blowjob, it says nothing about the prostitute’s sexuality.
Thanks. Having no experience with such professional matters I appreciate the education.
Slarti, if G/G wasn’t trying to avoid a background check, why didn’t he apply for a permanent pass?
I do agree with smlook that Social Security is much more important, but I think that the failure of the White House to even send a proposal to Capitol Hill tells us why nothing will happen this year.
As our Vice-President told us, Bush’s apparent proposal will cost trillions of dollars and solve none of the problems that may arrive around 2042.
Having no experience with such professional matters I appreciate the education.
It’s merely a hobby, eh? 😉
Anarch- You are going to be critisized for too personal a comment here. Even though Mac got away with a similar implication.
freelunch- I don’t think they did prevent the background check, the secret service’s policy was simply overridden.
Again, why did the White House need a gay hooker so badly?
For what it’s worth, I don’t think Gannon is the biggest story on earth. I think Togo is bigger, but when I wrote about it, almost no one commented. Oh well.
I do think that if someone did a background check and failed to turn up either the gay prostitute angle or the delinquent taxes, then that person is incompetent. And one of the reasons I am even mildly curious about this is because it’s not as though this White House hasn’t screwed up security clearances in the past. (See: Kerik, Bernard.) And that disturbs me, since, oddly enough, I care about the security of the President.
I also think that comments like, ‘so you’re saying the internet isn’t a news source?’ misses the point. I once published a newspaper, the Zeptor Herald, with my best friend, when we were (I think) nine. (We started a country called ‘Zeptorland’.) It had subscribers, too: my parents, her parents… I do not think that we should have been given passes to White House press conferences. And if we were denied, the appropriate response would not have been: but don’t you think newspapers are good news sources? Not all newspapers are alike. The NYT deserves to get in. The Zeptor Herald did not.
I’m not sure I agree. The Zeptor Herald might have offered a fresh perspective.
I see the story is ever in flux. Either he avoided a background check by getting a day pass, or the WH was sloppy in actually doing the background check, but both? Is anyone out there in possession of a fact that can be discussed?
Again with the idea that any background check is going to catch activities that he’d succeeded in hiding from the law. Once more, I think you overestimate what a background check actually does.
Not defending Gannon, just saying that many of you are highly overinflating the significance of aspects of this story. I could be doing any number of illegal, immoral or just distasteful things and still get a clearance, provided I didn’t reveal them and neither did any of my friends. I could even be selling classified data to…lemme see, who could I be selling them to? China. Let’s say China. Yes, I could be selling classified information to China, and the government would be none the wiser. I’d keep my clearance right up to the day when the FBI knocked on my door to take me away. If that ever happened.
Clearance procedures cannot be foolproof. There are any number of instances where people with clearances were able to engage in illegal and even treasonous activities, and those people hung on to their clearances (for years, in some cases) until someone found out. And I’m pretty sure that you don’t want the degree of surveillance necessary to make sure clearances are foolproof. Trust me, you really don’t.
This is frustrating. Gannon was delinquent in his taxes to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars. He was advertising his services on the internet as a prostitue under his real name.
Thats not exactly like espionage. Thats hiding in plain site. The secret service is a much more elite organization than the FBI which does securty background checks and contrary to what you imply the FBI would have found this stuff. Not paying your taxes makes you pop up on a bunch of databases.
Guckert applied for a permanent pass, but failed the required clearing for the Congressional press pool. He then, despite this, was given daily access to the WH press pool, despite a policy against repeated day passes. Having applied under his real name, he was transparently – well, what he is. We’re talking a couple minutes googling/credit checking, not a heightened degree of surveillance.
I don’t think the govt. should fall. I think some flunky should get fired and the WH should suffer some modicum of embarrassment which will slow its effort to a) marginalize the free press and b) capitalize off the homophobia/sexophobia of parts of its base.
And I think we should all now drop this thread and go comment on the Togo thread since we’re risking hilzoy‘s displeasure.
It’s kind of funny the way G/G’s supporters assert that it is pathetic, paranoid, dumb, brainless, and obsessive to believe there is a possibility that there may be a story here, and at the same time claim that we don’t have information about the circumstances surrounding G/G’s credentialling. If we don’t have the answers, how can you be so positive about the facts that you are willing to sling around schoolyard insults at anyone who thinks it might be a good idea to check out what happened?
All the White House has to do is answer some questions. It would help if it did so honestly this time.
It’s kind of funny the way G/G’s supporters
Could you provide a link to these G/G supporters? I’ve only read this thread about the thing, and I didn’t even know there were G/G supporters.
Rilkefan- Who do you suppose, in the White House, has the authority to override Secret Service procedure?
If firing a ‘flunky’ could have solved the problem they would already have done it.
I thought the Monica story was trivia too. (Not to mention O.J.)
Trivia is what the MSM does.
Well, yeah, but not paying your taxes is to the Republican Party what pizza delivery was to Bill Clinton.
It’s a door-opener.
Could you provide a link to these G/G supporters?
There is a scrollbar on the right side of your browser.
Now, I would still like a response to the question, “If we don’t have the answers, how can you be so positive about the facts that you are willing to sling around schoolyard insults at anyone who thinks it might be a good idea to check out what happened”?
There is a scrollbar on the right side of your browser.
Holy Cow! Is that what that thing is?
Unfortunately, as far as I’ve read, there aren’t any G/G supporters on this thread.
Unfortunately, as far as I’ve read, there aren’t any G/G supporters on this thread.
We’ll have to agree to disagree about that. Comparing the guy’s record favorably to a reporter with 61 years experience counts as support in my book, as does taking offense at true statements about G/G’s sexual proclivities, which we chose to make public, when G/G himself made a series of false statements about the non-public sexual proclivities of others (he claimed that Senator Kerry was gay, and was also apparently the source of the Kerry intern affair rumor).
Now back to the question, if we don’t have the answers, how can you be so positive about the facts that you are willing to sling around schoolyard insults at anyone who thinks it might be a good idea to check out what happened?
I guess you’ll need to ask one of those G/G supporters that question. Let me know what they say.
I’m pretty sure they’ll try to evade the question. Just a guess.
I don’t think so. If you can find one of these folks, I’m sure they’ll be happy to answer your question.
Mac, you’re right, all y’all have done your best to directly avoid defending G/G. And, at the risk of a Karnak award, I suspect that most of the sinister folks amongst us would rather that the press focus on other, larger issues. Like, say an administraion that condemns its putative allies for conduct that is indistiguishable from it’s own.
However, we are trying to learn our lessons. Of the things that was made clear by the opposition during the last administration, one of the big items was that scandalmongering can work, with the corollary that sex sells. So, the baser amongst will push this story, having given up hope that the more significant and truly criminal behavior will be receive the hearing that it deserves.
I’m sure they’ll be happy to answer your question.
I deem that possibility to be about as likely as Scott McClellan giving an honest and non-evasive answer regarding the White House’s knowledge of G/G’s background. Looks like we’ll have to agree to disagree again.
Well, you’ll never know until you try. No need to be pessimistic about something you haven’t even tried.
Jerry-
“So, the baser amongst will push this story, having given up hope that the more significant and truly criminal behavior will be receive the hearing that it deserves.”
I resemble that remark. Look they already got away with lying us into a war, and making torture publicly acceptable. Something “good guys” do on tv.
As a scandal this one is way more interesting than Monicagate, its clear that the press and even the evening talk shows have orders to handle this with kid gloves. Is it any wonder people don’t want to let this die?
Why was the White House so desperate to get a male prostitute inside on a daily basis?
“I deem that possibility to be about as likely as Scott McClellan giving an honest and non-evasive answer regarding the White House’s knowledge of G/G’s background.”
MaClellan can tell us what the White House knew about G’s background? Cool, unless he would just be speculating like other people around here.
MaClellan can tell us what the White House knew about G’s background? Cool, unless he would just be speculating like other people around here.
How absurd, that the spokesman for the White House might be asked to speak for the White House! It must be noted (again) that McClellan did in fact answer questions about what the White House knew. It just turned out that his initial answers, as far as we can tell given what we now know, lacked veracity. Whether that was due to Scott doing his job well or poorly in the eyes of his superiors is one of the open questions.
Whoops, I thought you were talking about Macallan. Boy does my sarcasm look stupid now. 🙂
But are they the same person? I’m betting Mr. McClellan can neither confirm nor deny that charge…
Macallan: If you can find one of these folks, I’m sure they’ll be happy to answer your question.
Timmy is never happy to answer anyone’s questions, Mac – be serious!
Slarti: I could be doing any number of illegal, immoral or just distasteful things and still get a clearance, provided I didn’t reveal them and neither did any of my friends.
True. But Gannon/Guckert did reveal his being a gay prostitute – all over the web – and the Bush administration are either complete hypocrites or they consider being a prostitute – a prostitute who caters to gay men – immoral and distasteful, at least. Illegal? (Could someone with more familiarity with the legal code in the states in which G/G operated tell me?)
Unless I am very much mistaken prostitution is unlawful in every jurisdiction in the U.S. outside of Nevada.
James Guckert as best we can tell operated in Pensylvania, Maryland and DC
And the Fishbowl saga continues…
(Seriously, whichever side of the fence you’re on, this is turning out to be an interesting story…)
Jes- I think interesting is an understatement. More like: weirldly, strangly, bizarrely, interesting, fascinating, and compelling.
As the poor man pointed out: its proof of the existence of the Lord. That a media whore would turn out to be a prostitute.
I felt I was being critisized for “speculation”, and I try not to, but I keep trying to imagine a good reason: why did the White House need daily visits from a gay prostitute. Couldn’t whoever his boyfriend was wait until he got home? Oh wait…. 🙂
Truly, I have no idea whether or not this is a true statement. Cite? I’ve done a little reading at americablog, and as far as I’ve seen, they’ve never shown that this is so. There’s pictures and pseudonyms, but I haven’t seen the Guckert connection.
Even if true, though, I’m thinking that this is not the sort of thing that would be netted by a background check. I’m thinking it will be, now.
Slarti
Here is the Americablog post describing how they found out the stuff, along with copies of invoices and some non work friendly pictures. You may be right that this is not the sort of thing that would have been picked up on a background check, but this information seems a lot more solid that you imply, especially when coupled with this post juxtaposed on Gigi’s statements in the interviews he has given.
Slarti, for fairly obvious reasons I am not going to try clicking on the Guckert/prostie sites when I’m at work. 😉
Here’s a couple of links that are themselves worksafe:
http://www.livejournal.com/users/plaidder/83851.html
http://www.livejournal.com/users/plaidder/84535.html
As I understand it, what has been shown is that (a) J.D.Guckert owns the prostie websites, and (b) a man who looks exactly like J.D.Guckert/Gannon is the man who appears in the nekkid pictures on the prostie websites. You may feel this is just coincidence…
I’m going to note once again that the after-the-fact connecting of dots done by the various websites you’ve linked to are not typical of functions performed by the FBI and other outfits that do such background checks. There are in fact some important distinctions between background investigations and criminal investigations. Primary of which is the purpose of background investigations is to verify the truth of the information you’ve given to the agency, while a criminal investigation is there to dig up additional material.
If anyone’s interested, I can probably dig up a questionnaire for DoD security, just so you can see what sort of questions might be asked. It’s all pretty mundane, and much of it they have to take your word for. In case anyone’s interested, they didn’t ask me if I was or ever had been a gay prostitute. And even if they did, they’d have to take my word for it that the answer was “no”. As for the tax delinquency part…I strongly doubt there’s going to be any sort of record of that unless there the IRS had already taken action. I’ve been a little late paying my taxes before, and there’s no evidence of it at all in any record at all, outside of what the IRS might have hanging around.
Slarti,
Former Daschle Campaign Spokesman Says Media Was Aware Jeff Gannon Had Told Lies About His Identity As Far Back as the Summer of 2003—
HREF=”http://billmon.org/archives/guckert.html “>Former Daschle Campaign Spokesman Says Media Was Aware Jeff Gannon Had Told Lies About His Identity As Far Back as the Summer of 2003—
Slarti,
Former Daschle Campaign Spokesman Says Media Was Aware Jeff Gannon Had Told Lies About His Identity As Far Back as the Summer of 2003
State of Delaware vs. James D. Guckert
Sorry I messed that 2nd link up
Oh, now this is more fun:
And this is actually amusing:
postit, I think it’s pretty clear that Guckert and Gannon are one and the same. What’s unclear is what the WH clearance process ought to have done differently.
So, it’s state taxes, and we know that as of October 18, 1996, Gannon hadn’t paid his state taxes and penalties. It’s not clear where you’re going with this. Is it your contention that the people clearing Gannon didn’t know about this, or that he lied about it? Or that maybe he still owes? Whichever, I’d want to see evidence.
Just for informational purposes, I’ve obtained a security clearance with a foreclosure in my credit history. I of course volunteered this information, but I have no idea that they’d have done anything or even noticed it if I hadn’t brought it up.
What’s unclear is what the WH clearance process ought to have done differently.
An acknowledgement by the WH that using a ‘revolving’ day pass as an end-run around the more rigorous capitol press credentialing system presents a serious security risk and should not be allowed, would be a start.
Slarti: What’s unclear is what the WH clearance process ought to have done differently.
Heh. Well, you know, one thing that’s absolutely clear they could have done differently: not handed out day press passes regularly for two years to someone with no journalistic experience, and no intention even of creating a career in journalism. (Many of G/G’s “articles” on Talon News were straight cut-and-pastes, unacknowledged, from White House press releases.)
You can make as a good a case as you like that, even if it was easy to turn up evidence that Gannon/Guckert is a prostitute, the WH clearance process wouldn’t have been able to do that. (I am not clear that you have made this case, btw. I’m just acknowledging the possibility that you might.)
Whether or not the WH clearance process should have figured out what G/G actually did for a living, it’s clear that they must have figured out whateber it was, it wasn’t journalism.
So, if we follow your line of thinking, G/G was admitted for two years as part of a deliberate strategy by the Bush administration to provide the public with their propaganda, masquerading as news, and they had no idea that their media whore was actually a real prostitute: that’s just God’s funny joke on them.
Or, someone senior in the Bush administration knows damn well that G/G is a prostitute… which is how G/G got in and kept on getting in. So to speak.
I’d like to thank everybody for an entertaining and informative discussion. Oddly, though I have learned a thing or two, I have yet to learn enough to answer my original inquiry. The there there question. If I understand where we’ve found ourselves at this point, the concern centers on a few key areas.
One being the background check, or lack of background check, or ignoring things found in a background check. You’ll forgive me if I’m come to the conclusion that nobody actually cares about this issue at all. Why would I conclude such a thing? Well the thought occurred to me that what if G/G wasn’t “reporting” for Talcum News? What if a chap, we’ll call him H/H, was seeking a day pass to the pressroom, and further that chap was an inexperienced but eager writer for The Nation?
Can you imagine the outrage, the horror and disgust if this eager fellow was denied access to the pressroom merely because he was gay? Or just happen to utilize the Internet to seek out other people? Or even if he took money from others who shared his sexual preferences. Maybe he didn’t even take money, but merely enjoyed to pretense of role-playing? ‘Goodness, who are we to judge such things? And HOW DARE those religious wingnut prudes at the White House invade H/H’s private life or deny him access to merely perform his job? This is purely a trumped up and salacious attempt to keep an honest reporter from doing his job!’
‘Aha!’ someone might say, ‘The Nation is a legitimate publication!’ Though, not really germane to this point, let’s concede that and change H/H’s affiliation to MoveOn.org. Would denial of a day pass, merely for running gay oriented websites or being a little behind in one’s taxes be perfectly acceptable to everyone? Would everyone cheer Scott McClellan when he says, ‘Look, it has nothing to do with his being gay, this about him being a whore and tax cheat. We just can’t have folks like that in the pressroom; really it has nothing to do with his leftist leaning. Really, trust me, nothing to do with his politics.’
Someone mentioned their concern for the security of the President, a concern I share of course, but if H/H of MoveOn.org was denied access for reasons of security to the President, can you forgive me if I imagine the following refrain would be common? ‘Oh come on! What are you afraid of? That H/H might come on to the President? That Bush will fondle his baldhead on camera? Or maybe you homophobes are afraid that being a gay whore is contagious? There is nothing about H/H’s sexual preferences and how he seeks to fulfill them or his tax issues that pose any danger to the Bush. What a joke.’
Another issue was concern about 730 straight day passes. Though the number seems suspect, we’ll just go with that and return to our friend. If H/H of MoveOn.org was denied a permanent pass, but stood in line everyday for 730 days and was granted a day pass would you:
[a] Be outraged by this travesty and wonder why the White House was giving H/H some special privilege?
[b] Wonder who H/H blew to get that gig?
[c] Be outraged that H/H wasn’t given a permanent pass a long time ago?
[d] Be certain that there is some nefarious plot afoot from those evil lying bushies?
[e] Wonder why any gives a fig?
So, have I missed anything? Apparently, the issue really can’t be that G/G is a tax evading gay whore or that there is something at fault in the credentialing process (particularly since the association of WH correspondents don’t appear to want any changes to the process), so what is the issue?
Heh. Well, I can tell you’ve got yourself convinced. If that’s your objective, you can give yourself a few pats on the back.
Perhaps. I mean, getting a daypass for a couple of years of consecutive days (Saturdays, Sundays and holidays included!) does look a bit odd. If that’s in fact what happened, I’d want an explanation, too.
While I haven’t commented on this issue, I find some irony in putting the last 2 posts together as follows:
“So, have I missed anything? Apparently, the issue really can’t be that G/G is a tax evading gay whore or that there is something at fault in the credentialing process (particularly since the association of WH correspondents don’t appear to want any changes to the process), so what is the issue?”
“Heh. Well, I can tell you’ve got yourself convinced. If that’s your objective, you can give yourself a few pats on the back.”
I mean, if after all of the people have said what their concerns are, if Macallan can’t take them at face value, then why has he been wasting his (and everyone else’s) time?
I’d ask Mac, if I were you. All asking the rest of us is going to result in is a lot more speculation, and God knows we’ve had quite enough of that in this thread alone.
Except Mac is taking them at face value and engaging them in conversation about it, what’s the problem? Or are you saying that I should just shut up?
Macallan,
I am not suggesting that you shut up. On the other hand, if someone left of center did that level of speculation as to what someone’s real motives were while ignoring what they have actually written, Bird Dog would have already awarded a slew of Karnak’s.
Dantheman I didn’t speculate about anyone’s motives, nor did I name any individuals. I did however speculate what reactions might be heard from some in analogous situations. Seems like a legitimate intellectual excercise. Was my speculation unfounded?
Macallan,
You don’t consider statements like “Apparently, the issue really can’t be that G/G is a tax evading gay whore or that there is something at fault in the credentialing process (particularly since the association of WH correspondents don’t appear to want any changes to the process)” or “You’ll forgive me if I’m come to the conclusion that nobody actually cares about this issue at all.” to be speculation on people’s motives? Really? It sure sounds it to me.
How about you start, Mac: Change all the names and political affiliations of the principals involved in this situation. What’s your reaction? As long we’re just supposin’, it seems only fair, doesn’t it?
Either the internet offers a legitimate news venue or doesn’t. Let me ask you this, would you be freak’n out if Markos Moulitsas was given a day pass to the pressroom?
“The internet?” Is this really the question you’re asking, or is it just the question you think you’re asking?
You really think there’s no distinction — or, at least, no important or worthwhile distinction, between Kos and, say Democratic Underground? Or a KKK news site? Or this guy?
If you really think there are no useful distinctions between those four things, then either I’m stupid, or you are.
Great question Phil!
I actually did do that mental exercise; I imagined that it was Clinton as president and that he was getting some softball questions from some partisan shill in the pressroom. Ahh, seems like old times doesn’t it? Would I favor digging into Joe Conason’s past and denying him a day pass? I doubt it. However, being a retched right wing miscreant I sort of assume that the “journalists” who have paraded through the pressroom for the last many decades aren’t likely to be the most sterling characters. In fact, I’m not sure I see much difference between prostitution and some journalist’s work.
Hmmm. For a first cut at it, let’s try the possibility that one involves typing and the other involves bodily fluids.
Dantheman,
You seem to conflate the specific with the general. I’d agree with you if I were speculating about any one specific person’s motives; however, in the general case, and as a means to hone in on what the real issue is, I can’t see why anyone would object.
Well that’s not entirely true, I can see why someone would object or be offended if my speculation were actually correct. If it isn’t, why would it bother anyone? Not to mention that the speculation was specifically offered for it to be refuted.
For a first cut at it, let’s try the possibility that one involves typing and the other involves bodily fluids.
You should hang out with some of the journalists I know…
Can you imagine the outrage, the horror and disgust if this eager fellow was denied access to the pressroom merely because he was gay?
A straw man argument. There is a substantive difference between merely being gay, and being a prostitute. There is also a substantive difference between MoveOn.org and GOPUSA at the time when G/G was granted his first press pass.
If H/H of MoveOn.org was denied a permanent pass, but stood in line everyday for 730 days and was granted a day pass
Again, the comparison to MoveOn.org is not a valid one, as MoveOn.org is a much larger and visible organization than GOPUSA was at the time G/G got his first press pass. A better comparison would be to an obscure left-leaning internet operation consisting of 2 or 3 people which had little or no track record of publishing anything whatsoever. If such an organization received daily passes on a regular basis for 2 years, I would assume something was up.
My first assumption would be that said organization had friends in high places. If the White House denied that, and claimed that the only check it did was whether the organization that H/H was working for in fact existed, I would know that they were either being inconsistent or lying, as other people with the same (almost non-existent) qualifications were denied access. And at that point, I would think it would be a good idea for people to start asking some questions.
Now if the White House wants to admit they gave G/G access for such a long period because of his organization’s political connections to the Republican Party, that would be believable given the way the White House deals with the press. But if they are going to deny that, then either they are lying, incompetent, or something else is up. I would like to know which of those cases is in fact the truth.
particularly since the association of WH correspondents don’t appear to want any changes to the process
I’m not going to dig up links, as I wasted enough time on it yesterday, but according to what I read then, changes to the process are in fact desired and being discussed.
Would I favor digging into Joe Conason’s past and denying him a day pass?
I know that if you try really hard, you will be able to tell the difference between a non-journalist working for GOPUSA and the political editor for the New York Observer. You are playing the part of a G/G supporter again, whether you choose to admit it or not.
In fact, I’m not sure I see much difference between prostitution and some journalist’s work
Interesting. So I guess law-and-order conservatives are going the way of fiscal conservatives, foreign policy conservatives, and small-government conservatives. A pity, really.
“I’d agree with you if I were speculating about any one specific person’s motives; however, in the general case, and as a means to hone in on what the real issue is, I can’t see why anyone would object. ”
Because you are doing even worse. You are speculating on the individual motives of everyone on the other side of the issue from you. By saying “nobody actually cares…” you are saying everyone purporting to care about this is really dissembling about their motives.
As to offering it to be refuted, I have seen numerous comments above where people say what their concern is. Therefore, I think it already has been refuted. Are you saying (as your words seem to) that they all are not telling the truth? That you know better than they do what really lurks in their hearts?
So if I read all that correctly felixrayman the size of the organization represented is the key and most important difference. MoveOn should get a pass because they are bigger than GOPUSA? I am sure that the Big Media conglomerates would be heartened to hear that distinction and that minority or fringe views need not be served in the pressroom. I’m sure that if the WH prohibited the Transgender Tribune from having access on the basis of its insignificance in comparison to other media outlets, this is something you would applaud?
And, I know this is picky, but it does drive me insane, you can’t ‘hone in on’ anything. You ‘home in on’ something, or you ‘hone’ [sharpen] it. I’m sure I’ve committed far worse solecisms, but that one irritates the bejesus out of me.
Dantheman,
I’m saying that they are free to attempt to convince me that my conclusions are false. I think I’m free to reach my own well considered conclusions aren’t I?
Thanks for the correction LizardBreath.
Macallan,
You are certainly free to reach your own conclusions. That’s precisely why I found the line from Slarti I quoted above (“Heh. Well, I can tell you’ve got yourself convinced. If that’s your objective, you can give yourself a few pats on the back.”) so ironic when placed next to your comment.
MoveOn should get a pass because they are bigger than GOPUSA?
Would, not necessarily should. Although if you were deciding and had to choose between a news organization with 10,000,000 readers, and one with 10, which would you pick?
Would, not necessarily should. Although if you were deciding and had to choose between a news organization with 10,000,000 readers, and one with 10, which would you pick?
Was any organization with 10,000,000 readers denied a day pass in favor of G/G?
MoveOn.org is a news organization? I guess the NRA is a news organization too.
Further, of course the size of the organization is an appropriate factor. There is a finite and small number of seats in the White House press room — if every reporter from the West Turniptop Gazette or the Transgender Times were to be admitted as a matter of right, then there wouldn’t be room for them all. (This is so blindingly obvious that I can’t believe I’m saying it.)
As the White House is in charge of distributing this scarce resource, they have to select admittees on some basis, and a basis they have consistently used in the past is that the person applying for admission is employed as a journalist by a news organization with an appreciable readership. G/G didn’t meet this criteron — when he was first admitted, the organization he worked for was a political advocacy organization, not a news publisher, and even after Talon was founded, it had an insignificant readership. If they let in everyone who met that standard, they’d have to hold press conferences in a football stadium.
LizardBreath,
I think this is a great line of argument. Was a day pass to G/G keeping someone else important or significant out?
“As the White House is in charge of distributing this scarce resource, they have to select admittees on some basis, and a basis they have consistently used in the past is that the person applying for admission is employed as a journalist by a news organization with an appreciable readership.”
I can’t find it now, but at the beginning of this discussion a couple of weeks ago I read that the press seats were rarely if ever full, so the resource wasn’t particularly scarce.
I don’t have a list of organizations or individuals who sought day passes and were denied. Of course, as cited in the post we’re commenting on, Fishbowl DC can’t get a pass, despite having more readers than G/G did when he got his first pass.
Do you believe that anyone who wants a day pass, as a matter of practice, gets one? Daily, for two years? If so, do you have any basis at all for this belief?
Do you believe that anyone who wants a day pass, as a matter of practice, gets one? Daily, for two years? If so, do you have any basis at all for this belief?
If you’re asking me this, I must confess I have no idea why.
Because if there are any criteria used to select who gets a day pass (as the fact that Fishbowl DC has been unable to get one would suggest) it seems impossible that Gannon could have met those criteria before the ‘news’ organization for which he works was even founded. Given that he did not meet those criteria, it looks as though strings were pulled on his behalf.
You may believe that there are no such criteria — that day pases are handed out to anyone who asks for one. I’m asking if you do believe that, and, if so, what’s your basis.
MoveOn.org is a news organization?
According to Mac, they certainly are. Or at least, he keeps bringing them up as a potential counterfactual, so he must think they are. His criterion so far seems to be “anything on the internets is a legitimate news source and should be eligible for a day pass.” I asked him if there were any important distinctions between Daily Kos, Democratic Underground, a KKK news site, and some crazy bastard who drives around Arlington with his conspiracy site advertised on the side of his van. He declined to answer, so I’m assuming until otherwise corrected that his answer was, “No, there is not.”
But LizardBreath, doesn’t that really only matter if your contention is correct and this is a limited resource. Like I said, I think the ‘G/G got in at the expense of someone more worthy’ is a great line of argument.
So Phil, you would oppose a MoveOn rep getting a day pass?
Folks here, on many sides of the issue, keep saying Gannon lobbed softballs.
Isn’t that a bit of an understatement, given questions like these:
I would submit that these are not even softball questions. These are examples of open advocacy, and any comparisons with other journalists should take this into account. I also think that, while advocacy from the press corps is distasteful in general, it is orders of magnitude worse when that advocacy is in support of the person fielding questions. This is the difference between a heckler and a shill.
Macallan–
Fishbowl DC, linked in the post to which we are all responding, can’t get a pass. What made G/G worthy of a pass when Fishbowl can’t get one?
Yes, Mac, I wouldopposed MoveOn.org getting access to the pressroom. They are not a news site or a newsgathering organization. They are a political organizing and advocacy group.
Oh and Phil, a cite for this:
His criterion so far seems to be “anything on the internets is a legitimate news source and should be eligible for a day pass.”
…would be great. What I’ve been trying to do is determine what people who object to G/G use as criteria. I haven’t set or proposed any criteria.
Great Phil. Thanks for the clarification on MoveOn. Would you object to Mother Jones getting a day pass?
To get a hard pass, the White House requires that you have credentials to cover Capitol Hill. To get those credentials, you have to work for a legitimate news gathering organization, rather than a political advocacy group. We are suggesting that those criteria, which G/G could inarguably not have met at the time he was first given a day pass, should have been applied evenhandedly, and that the fact that they were not suggests that strings were pulled on G/G’s behalf.
Mother Jones is a news magazine rather than a political advocacy group, and as such would be perfectly eligible for a day or a hard pass under the White House’s normal standards.
Is it your contention that there are no journalists with agendas?
>>>sigh<<< You asked me, "Is the internet a legitimate news venue or not?" I asked you if there were any useful distinctions between different types of sites on the internet. You declined to answer. I am therefore assuming that you believe there are no useful distinctions between different types of websites and that all should be equally eligible to enter the White House and sit just yards away from the President of the United States If that's not what you believe, feel free to correct me.
And feel free to, you know, offer some opinions of your own instead of quizzing everyone else. It’s OK — nobody will come to your house or anything.
Also, why don’t you just throw out the entire list of publications and websites that you’d like to ask everyone about so you can have your triumphant “Gotcha!” moment, and save us all some time?
Of course journalists have agendas. Nonetheless, there is a difference between a question asked to get a response, even if it is asked with an agenda or the hope/expectation that the response is inadequate or embarassing, and a speech made for the record. What would the press secretary reasonably say as a response to the G/G questions quoted other than , “Thanks! We love you too”? They aren’t questions at all.
And feel free to, you know, offer some opinions of your own instead of quizzing everyone else. It’s OK — nobody will come to your house or anything.
I started on this thread with my opinion. That opinion is that I don’t get it. So I’m try’n to get it. If you don’t like the questions, you can always decline to answer, particularly if the questions aren’t relevant to you — as I did your question.
The question is only relevant to those who make a distinction of what is what isn’t a legitimate excuse for day pass.
Slartibartfast: Is it your contention that there are no journalists with agendas?
Were that my contention, I would have said something to that effect.
Wow, the thread that would not die. C’mon everybody, Togo.
Don’t you mean toga?
Mac, no one is allowed to comment further on this thread except in Latin.
Since you claim not to “get it,” Mac, I’d think a question designed to elicit from you whether you see a distinction between news organizations and other organizations, and between news websites and other kinds of websites, would in fact be relevant to you. Is there some additional, unstated, reason why it is not relevant? Or are you not actually interested in “getting it?”
I’m sure those fabulous Gannon speeches will never be forgotten, Liz.
Is it too late to drag in the famous (and oddly relevant) Reagan quote?
Hmmm…that went remarkably better than I would have expected.
I’m out of town and only now just got online access to read through the thread. Thanks for keeping it all so entertaining/civil folks!
“Because if there are any criteria used to select who gets a day pass (as the fact that Fishbowl DC has been unable to get one would suggest) it seems impossible that Gannon could have met those criteria before the ‘news’ organization for which he works was even founded.”
You are presuming that post-day pass scandal day passes are just as easy to get as pre-day pass scandal day passes. That doesn’t seem like a good assumption.
Where’s this alleged Togo post, and why doesn’t OW’s own search engine turn it up?
Here’s a story of a larger (albeit still small and local) publication that went through a two week process to get a day pass for one day. Apparently even before the scandal they weren’t handed out like party favors.
Do we know how long it took Gannon to get his first day pass?
Do we know how long it took Gannon to get his first day pass?
We still don’t know why he got one at all, nor why it was renewed for two years even though he wasn’t actually using it for journalistic purposes.
Actually, it begins to look promising for Fishbowl – though it looks like ze needed at least one helpful contact in order to be taken seriously.
In theory at least, Fishbowl should get a one-day press pass for Monday. (But will ze get it renewed for two years? :->)
Unfortunately for those who claim it’s not difficult for any no-name non-journalist to get a day pass, it does very much look as if Fishbowl got zirs by insider connections:
Good for Fishbowl.
We still don’t know who G/G knew (or did) that got him in…
why it was renewed for two years even though he wasn’t actually using it for journalistic purposes.
Well, that’s what I’d been saying about Helen Thomas for 4 years. Her questions were the same type of nonsense as Gannon, just from the other side of the divide. Maybe I missed your prior calls for Helen to be tossed.
And yet she writes for actual news publications (note: someone who writes opinion pieces can still be a journalist), and has a long and distinguished career as a journalist behind her. G/G does not, and has not.
I would comment on your persistent failure to grasp this distinction, but whether I phrase the comment in terms of your intellect or your integrity, I am unable to word it in a fashion that remains within the admirable civility rules of this site.
Nothing wrong with my intellect or integrity LizardBreath, but gosh thanks for thinking about them and that clumsy attempt around the posting rules. The problem is that Helen’s past has nothing to do with what she did for a living from 2000 to 2004. She did not work as journalist during that period, and her columns did not in anyway require her having access to the pressroom. She made partisan speeches just as much Gannon, and her status as a fossil doesn’t make it any more acceptable than Gannon. Walter Cronkite doesn’t have any more right or need than Gannon to pontificate in the WH pressroom. Your inability to grasp that is not for me to speculate about.
Well, that’s what I’d been saying about Helen Thomas for 4 years. Her questions were the same type of nonsense as Gannon, just from the other side of the divide. Maybe I missed your prior calls for Helen to be tossed.
Stop the presses here, but I actually agree with Mac on this one. Helen Thomas makes no secret of how loathesome a president she thinks Bush is, and hasn’t ever since her retirement from print journalism to write editorials. The kinds of questions she asks are the antithesis of Guckert’s: hard-hitting, confrontational, highly critical, and unashamedly partisan. So if being an impartial journalist is your only metric for who gets into the WH, she gets the boot along with Guckert.
This is missing the forest for the trees, however. Thomas has been covering the WH for over 40 years. She has been delivering sharply critical questions and barbed wit to both Democratic and Republican administrations. Her position in the press pool is the result of decades of professional, quality journalism experience.
If you’d like to argue that retiring from objective journalism to become a partisan pundit trumps all her past experience and disqualifies her from being in the WH press pool, that argument can certainly be made. I’m not certain I’d disagree, but I’d prefer to leave that judgement to my Republican friends, as I personally think our elected officials could stand to be directly questioned and challenged a lot more than they are (think Canada or the UK), and thus cherish the one voice in the WH press corps that doesn’t all but fellate Scott McClellan and Bush.
But if you’re trying to argue that Guckert and Thomas are somehow equivalent… that is an argument that is either dishonest or ignorant.
Macallan, why do you keep asking why Helen Thomas has a press pass, when you don’t seem to like the answer – which has been given to you repeatedly. (You haven’t asked why Les Kinsolving has a press pass. Why’s that?)
G/G had nothing justifying his press pass, except a career as a prostitute posing as a serviceman.
But if you’re trying to argue that Guckert and Thomas are somehow equivalent… that is an argument that is either dishonest or ignorant.
I’m saying neither belongs in the pressroom if all they are doing is making speeches or taking partisan shots. You’ll have to decide if that’s dishonest or ignorant.
Helen Thomas currently writes a syndicated column that is published in the Hearst newspapers. Whether she is biased or unbiased is not the issue, and whether she is a fact reporter or an opinion columnist is not the issue. The distinction you are unable to grasp is that she currently works as a journalist for an actual news organization, which G/G does not.
And I thought that was rather a graceful evasion of the posting rules.
Les Kinsolving
IIRC the overtly partisan hack Kinsolving does actually report his White House stuff for World Net Daily. I’m not sure Kinsolving is a good example for you, because he really isn’t that qualified and is mostly an opinion pusher, yet he’s been credentialed for years.
Wow Macallen- You make BD seem reasonable and considered.
(Yes I know he’s going to take that as a complement, but hey what can you do?)
The distinction you are unable to grasp is that she currently works as a journalist for an actual news organization, which G/G does not.
I can’t grasp it because she DOESN’T work as journalist. She writes an opinion column.
Wow Frank.
Maybe that was over the line here. Looking at your tendentious comments initially rendered me speechless. Maybe I should have just left it at that.
I’m not sure Kinsolving is a good example for you, because he really isn’t that qualified and is mostly an opinion pusher, yet he’s been credentialed for years.
So surely he would have been the obvious name for you to keep pushing? You could make a much more plausible case for G/G’s presence in the press room being nothing out of the ordinary if you made your argument based on Les Kinsolving’s presence in the press room.
Yet your focus, like Timmy’s, like Ann Coulter’s, seems to be completely on a respected journalist with decades of experience in the White House press room.
Odd, that.
Macallan: I can’t grasp it because she DOESN’T work as journalist. She writes an opinion column.
I think you just have trouble grasping facts even when they’ve been repeatedly explained to you, Macallan. But I think there’s a limit to the number of times other people should have to explain simple facts to you: you can always use the scroll bar to re-read them. Perhaps if you do so often enough, you’ll grasp it eventually.
Now, if you want to make an argument that G/G’s presence is nothing unusual because a partisan hack like Les Kinsolving can get credentialled, do go ahead. 😉
I’m saying neither belongs in the pressroom if all they are doing is making speeches or taking partisan shots. You’ll have to decide if that’s dishonest or ignorant.
I don’t think so. It sounds like you’re basically agreeing with my first position, which is that her retirement from objective reporting is what disqualifies her, all other considerations being irrelevant. I’m not sure I disagree on the first part, although I would argue that it’s much better to have a partisan asking sharply critical questions than one who’s simply there to help the PS or the president /evade/ hard questions. I would also reiterate that Helen’s sharp tongue has lashed Democratic and Republican administrations alike, and point out that her experience and credentials dwarf Guckert’s by so many orders of magnitude as to render any comparison utterly facile.
The problem is that Helen’s past has nothing to do with what she did for a living from 2000 to 2004. She did not work as journalist during that period
First, if Helen Thomas did not work as a journalist after 2000, her past 57 years would still be relevant. Second:
Helen Thomas meets that criteria. Unless you are using sources other than the dictionary to define your terms, you will agree she worked as a journalist during the period in question. And one who has covered every President, travelling world-wide to cover them for well-known news organizations, for the last 40 years or so. Your professed inability to distinguish between those qualifications and the qualifications of G/G is what makes you a supporter of the latter.
Now, you may not like the questions Helen Thomas asks, and it would be perfectly fair to take a look at her background, and at who pays her to ask the questions she asks and why. That’s what is being done with G/G, but you consider that to be paranoid and pathetic. What’s more, from your responses in this thread, you threw around those insults before you knew much about the facts of the matter at hand.
Huh.
Gosh Frank, I’m blushing… “tendentious” is so nice in comparison to the prior questions of my integrity, honesty and ability to fire synapses.
I think you just have trouble grasping facts even when they’ve been repeatedly explained to you, Macallan. But I think there’s a limit to the number of times other people should have to explain simple facts to you: you can always use the scroll bar to re-read them. Perhaps if you do so often enough, you’ll grasp it eventually.
Perhaps you can explain to me what point is in there other than cheap insult?
The question assumes facts not in evidence.
but you consider that to be paranoid and pathetic. What’s more, from your responses in this thread, you threw around those insults before you knew much about the facts of the matter at hand.
Yeah, I didn’t know all the “facts” that convinced people that Hilary off’d Vince Foster either…
Mac, Frank, all of you… go to opposite corners. If there aren’t enough corners, stare at a wall and pretend it’s one.
Then, silly string at twenty paces.
Twenty paces? Are you mad? Silly string is a close combat weapon. If it’s twenty paces I’d say Nerf® rockets…
Where’s this alleged Togo post, and why doesn’t OW’s own search engine turn it up?
That was a typo — it was a Torgo post.
Incidentally, I know of no reasonable definition of the word journalist that excludes opinion columnists. One of my co-workers is a member of SPJ; I’ll ask her if any op-ed people are members. I doubt that the answer, if it proves to be “yes,” will dissuade Macallan from his delusion that they aren’t, but it will be interesting nonetheless.
Yeah, I didn’t know all the “facts” that convinced people that Hilary off’d Vince Foster either…
Yes, believing that the First Lady killed the President’s lawyer is the same as wondering why a non-journalist with no journalism experience who worked at a (at the time he applied) nonexistent publication was given access to the White House press room. Exactly the same.
Phil, you surmise correctly. Even if your “co-worker” says opinion writers fit under the umbrella of “journalist” I will continue in my silly and “delusional” view that Helen Thomas was no longer acting as a reporter and had no reason or professional need to be making hack speeches in the pressroom. She was not working as a White House correspondent for any news organization in the world.
Even if your “co-worker” says opinion writers fit under the umbrella of “journalist” I will continue in my silly and “delusional” view that Helen Thomas was no longer acting as a reporter and had no reason or professional need to be making hack speeches in the pressroom.
Is this about Helen Thomas specifically, or op-ed columnists generally, Mac? Your claim is: “I can’t grasp it because she DOESN’T work as journalist. She writes an opinion column.” Does this formulation apply, magically I suppose, only to Helen Thomas? Or does it apply to all opinion columnists?
Seeing as how SPJ lets in three kinds of people — journalists, journalism teachers, and journalism students — I’m going to assume for the nonce that they actually know what they’re talking about, and you don’t.
Make no mistake — I have no dog in the Helen Thomas fight particularly. Don’t read her stuff, don’t care. I do have a dog in the fight against rank stupidity, which includes the supposition that op-ed writers are not journalists, using any reasonable definition of the word.
She was not working as a White House correspondent for any news organization in the world.
And neither was Guckert.
Is this about Helen Thomas specifically
Not all. It was merely knocking down the fallacious argument put forth that G/G shouldn’t be there because all he did was make partisan speeches. You can only credibly put forth that argument if you are in fact against people asking questions that are nothing but partisan speeches in the pressroom. If people think Helen Thomas’ style is cool, they can’t complain about the same from a different political point of view. In fact, the president of the White House Correspondents Association made a similar observation:
She was not working as a White House correspondent for any news organization in the world.
And neither was Guckert.
Which is why I’ve said neither belonged there. Seems simple enough.
This thread is unbelievably fascinating.
Phil- you are giving Mac way way way too much credit
The fact that Ron Hutcheson is parroting inane right wing spin points doesn’t cause them to make sense. It just reduces his credibility in general.
The wobbly fat under Hellen Thomas’s arm knows more about journalism than Phil and Macallan put together will ever learn.
Priceless stuff Frank. Absolutely priceless. That’s the kind of stuff that makes it so fascinating.
thanks
Thomas is a heckler and Gannon is a shill, Mac. You might find both roles annoying, but they are not morally equivalent. Oh, and Thomas has 40-some-odd years of good faith journalism under her belt, while Gannon was able to figure out how to cut and paste from White House fact sheets. Whether Thomas belongs in the press corps or not, comparing her to a tool like Gannon is nonsensical.
It was merely knocking down the fallacious argument put forth that G/G shouldn’t be there because all he did was make partisan speeches
Can you knock down your fallacious straw man argument while you’re at it? The main criticism is not that G/G should be disallowed from having a press pass because he made partisan speeches – although that was what made lefty bloggers interested in who was paying the guy. As stated before, if you want to inquire into Helen Thomas’s background and the background of the organizations that publish her work, go for it. If she is getting paid by the DNC or similar organizations to ask the questions she asks, that’s a piece of information the public should know.
The interesting question was why G/G was allowed a (for all practical purposes permanent) press pass when he did not have the background or qualifications that others granted that access did have. All the White House can point to is that the organization he worked for existed. That’s the reason McClellan gave, after his earlier statements became inoperational. Not that it was publishing on a regular basis, only that it existed. We know for a fact that others with greater qualifications have a hard time getting a pass for one day, let alone a pass every day for two years.
Why was G/G different?
I expect that instead of answering the hard questions (like that one, or, for example, “If we don’t have the answers, how can you be so positive about the facts that you are willing to sling around schoolyard insults at anyone who thinks it might be a good idea to check out what happened?”), you will continue to try to divert the conversation to the aforementioned straw man argument of your choosing.
Gromit,
So far there is no evidence that Gannon is a shill. He is a sycophant for certain, only speculation on being a shill. That distinction aside, I don’t see where moral equivalence enters the matter. Saying one murderer and one embezzler should not teach a pre-school class doesn’t necessarily draw a moral parallel between the two…perhaps it sets a baseline…it just means neither ought to be there.
Nothing nonsensical, at least if you’re sincere in arguing against partisan pontification in the pressroom.
Well since instead of answering the question you went back to straw man manufacture, I take it you don’t like felixraymans reasonable, civil question.
Here’s the one we should be asking everyone we know:
Why did the White House need a gay prostitute coming inside on a daily basis?
What would be really interesting felixrayman would be why I would bother to answer questions put forth in such an uncivil manner. Come on, there’s no need to be such a snot.
The answer to your question, so far, seems to be that nobody has really brought evidence that G/G was handled uniquely or out of the norm. His day pass only looks permanent in hindsight. Maybe he had to wait months before he got his first one. Maybe he had a non-salacious connection to someone who put a good word in for him. Maybe he started to get in during a slow news period like August and the there were plenty of seats. There’s lots of speculation, but scant evidence.
I didn’t see anything remotely uncivil in felixraymans post.
What part of “We know for a fact that others with greater qualifications have a hard time getting a pass for one day, let alone a pass every day for two years.”
didn’t you understand?
To save time instead of asking for a cite just look upthread for one of the numerous times one has been posted.
Timmy is never happy to answer anyone’s questions
Not true.
As for the balance of the conversation whatever litmus test you all are pushing it should be equally applied to both the left and the right but sexual orientation shouldn’t be a part of it.
The continued search for a scandal goes on amusing all of us who are more interested in material global events and those who are so worried that Bush may get credited for it.
Actually all of us want to make sure that Bush gets all the credit he deserves.
I won’t belabor the point, I will let Daniel Shorr do that for me.
Do you ever stop trying to derail threads you don’t like?
I notice you haven’t attempted to answer any of the outstanding questions here.
So “Timmy is never happy to answer anyone’s questions”
seems true enough to me.
I didn’t see anything remotely uncivil in felixraymans post.
Knock me over with a feather. Another priceless comment Frank.
I begin to suspect that many comments I thought were engaging in vigorous debate seem uncivil to you. How about that last comment of yours?
outstanding questions?
Where?
I would even settle for substantial questions but I see none. I see the manufacturing of scandal and I continue to be amused.
Mac you hurt Frank’s feelings. You have to remember how fragile Frank is.
An ambition to get into the White House press core is a laudible one. Kinda intelectual though. Odd when you think about it Guckert doesn’t seem an intelectual type, at all. Makes one wonder if getting Gannon into the White House wasn’t Guckert’s idea, whose was it?
Why did the Bush administration need a male prostitute making daily house calls?
Thanks Frank, I couldn’t have said it better.
So Frank, you think saying this like, “what part of… didn’t you understand” is civil? Noted and thanks.
Sorry everybody- I forgot I wasn’t supposed to feed the trolls.
nobody has really brought evidence that G/G was handled uniquely or out of the norm
This is false. There has been plenty of that type of evidence presented in this thread.
Maybe he had to wait months before he got his first one
Then the White House is lying. Why?
Maybe he had a non-salacious connection to someone who put a good word in for him
The White House description of events rules out such a thing. They could, of course, be lying.
Maybe he started to get in during a slow news period like August and the there were plenty of seats
He started to get in in February 2003, a few weeks before the invasion of Iraq began. A slow news period? You could do a quick Google search before you throw this junk out there, you know. You’re tossing all this stuff out there, nothing is matching up with the facts, yet you are so sure there is not a story that you felt the need to insult those who believe it’s worth checking out.
Something isn’t making sense here.
Your best case scenario could indeed be true. And the best case scenario that is half-way congruent with the facts is that G/G knew someone who got him a press pass, the White House found him useful and kept him around for a few years, and they don’t want to admit a single mistake so they won’t tell the truth about how he got in.
There are other scenarios that could be true also. I think they should be checked out. We should have an open government. When there is a press conference, we should know the relationships between the people asking the questions and the people answering them. It is unclear to me what is so obsessive, pathetic, paranoid, or dumb about desiring such a thing.
It is unclear to me what is so obsessive, pathetic, paranoid, or dumb about desiring such a thing.
Your response makes it somewhat clear to me, but I can see why we wouldn’t see eye to eye on that. Good luck.
“When there is a press conference, we should know the relationships between the people asking the questions and the people answering them. It is unclear to me what is so obsessive, pathetic, paranoid, or dumb about desiring such a thing.”
Imagine it is like asking for a tape where the head of a news agency apparently accuses the US of targeting journalists and maybe you will understand.
If you are going to make comments like, “Maybe he started to get in during a slow news period like August and the there were plenty of seats” and a quick Google search shows that is the complete opposite of the facts, as though you couldn’t even be bothered to post something that at least had the possibility of being true?
No, we are not going to see eye to eye at all.
And if you are using something other than either the dictionary or customary usage to define what “journalist” means, but you won’t divulge what the source of that definition might be?
No, we are not going to see eye to eye at all.
You are going to maintain that a 61-year veteran journalist who covered every administration since JFK has the exact same qualifications as some whore off the street?
Nope. We are not going to see eye to eye.
You are going to construct straw man arguments while studiously ignoring the relevant questions?
What a surprise. We aren’t going to see eye to eye.
And you are going to start off a debate by insulting those who disagree with you?
Huh. Well, guess what?
Imagine it is like asking for a tape where the head of a news agency apparently accuses the US of targeting journalists and maybe you will understand.
I will intentionally ignore the differences between the off-record statements of persons acting in a non-official capacity and the on-record statments of persons in the executive branch acting in an official capacity and simply say that I’m glad to see you agree with me on this one.
Excellent, I’ll ignore that allowing a journalist or pseudo-journalist into a press conference on a regular basis is orders of magnitude less important that making unfounded and hugely inflammatory accusations to the world’s most important leaders and we can all be happy.
No problem, the admission that the world’s most important leaders aren’t all from the US, and that their opinions are important is a big first step for you. 😉
Felixrayman- Wow dude. I can’t believe you had the patience to work your way through all that b.s. My hats off to you sir.
Sebastian- I congratulate you. Most people in the world already had reason to know the U.S. targeted journalists. But your side successfully created an atmosphere of fear in the American journalism community, such that no one will dare to raise the subject here.
I am much less sure you will manage to win this one. Reporters are dying to cover this story, since it has all the elements todays’ media loves.
“But your side successfully created an atmosphere of fear in the American journalism community, such that no one will dare to raise the subject here.”
It is amazing that asking for a tape can successfully create an atmosphere of fear in the American journalism community. They must be a lot less tough than their reputation suggests.
Macallan: Perhaps you can explain to me what point is in there other than cheap insult?
You have been repeatedly asking questions that have already been answered, at length – for example, you keep asking what the difference is between Helen Thomas and Gannon/Guckert, yet this has been repeatedly explained in this very thread. All you had to do was use the scrollbar and re-read the explainations until it finally sank in.
Sebastian: Excellent, I’ll ignore that allowing a journalist or pseudo-journalist into a press conference on a regular basis is orders of magnitude less important that making unfounded and hugely inflammatory accusations to the world’s most important leaders and we can all be happy.
Oh, Sebastian, you’re back on that? But you know perfectly well – I provided enough links – that Eason Jordan made no public accusation, that the comments he made about US soldiers killing journalists were not unfounded, and that you have no idea whether what he said was “hugely inflammatory” or not. (Nor, AFAIK, do you know who was present at that particular session, but we already know it wasn’t “the world’s most important leaders”.) So why are you making these unfounded and hugely inflammatory comments yourself? Especially in this thread?
Sebastian- I have to wonder if you are being deliberately obtuse. Asking for the tape isn’t what scared journalists.
I have along with some others called journalists whores. There is a grain of truth there, certainly Armstrong Williams is such a whore, but journalists have reason to be afraid of the right wing. Over the years the mighty wurlitzer has canceled programs and ended careers for a number of journalists.
On the left we complain that the media panders but, even when the right wing press outright lies we can’t get them fired. Witness Brit Hume getting away with writing speaches for F.D.R.
We fail to punish our enemies, and fail to protect our friends, no wonder the media panders.
Excellent, I’ll ignore that allowing a journalist or pseudo-journalist into a press conference on a regular basis is orders of magnitude less important that making unfounded and hugely inflammatory accusations to the world’s most important leaders and we can all be happy.
If — and this is a big “if” rather than “when” — it were to turn out that Guckert actually was given privileged access from someone in the White House for the reasons surmised — i.e., to give the press secretary a shill who would simply repeat GOP talking points, and to whom he could go for softballs when the pressure got too bad . . . I’m not saying this is how this will shake out, but if it did, you don’t think that’s more important? Man, I sure would.
“When there is a press conference, we should know the relationships between the people asking the questions and the people answering them. It is unclear to me what is so obsessive, pathetic, paranoid, or dumb about desiring such a thing.”
Imagine it is like asking for a tape where the head of a news agency apparently accuses the US of targeting journalists and maybe you will understand.
The things one learns on threads like this are amazing. Are US press conferences held under Chatham rules too??
And Sebastian, are you still not really interested in knowing wether the US *was* targetting journalists? Is the witchhunt to determine wether the person saying that was hinting at it or actually stating that more important than investigating the facts?
I don’t want to comment much on the G/G affair since it is very domestical US. It is not really reported on here in the Netherlands, apart from some small articles that convey some sort of embarrased amusement.
For me personally it is another bit of proof for the weird and kind of scary (for someone in a public office) way Bush tries to control the press. Like the complaints when the Irish journalist asked critical questions on his visit there, or the cancelling of meeting with ‘ordinary’ Germans when the Germans didn’t want to use pre-approved questions. As the former minster of foreign affairs in Canada wrote to Condi in a quite entertaining letter about the missiles:
When there is a press conference, we should know the relationships between the people asking the questions and the people answering them.
An excellent analogy, is why the MSM spent so much time on TANG and was mute on SF 180.
…”a virtual one-party state”…dutchie not for nothing Canada is a far better example of a one-party state than America is. I missed the structural checks and balances of the Canadian system. And despite a national scandal, I missed the change of party in your last election. BTW, who controls the electronic media in Canada (the state or is it privately controlled).
Oh Canada, I wish you would at least pay for your own defense, rather than rely on America.
Looks like one a them there open letters. I really, really doubt he posted her a copy. And being a “former” foreign minister, it appears his manners are “former”, as well:
The Orlando Sentinel features opinion columns by high school and college-age kids in the area, and most of these are of better quality, and better mannered.
dutchie not for nothing Canada is a far better example of a one-party state than America is. I missed the structural checks and balances of the Canadian system. And despite a national scandal, I missed the change of party in your last election.
More evidence that Timmy doesn’t really read what other people write. Dutchmarbel is from Holland, not Canada. Also, perhaps I’m being delicate again, but calling someone ‘dutchie’ (given the fact that you can’t even figure out what country she is from) is a bit rude. (if you are wondering why I haven’t pointed out anything previous to this, I think that Mac is just trolling, so it’s just noise. Of course, I think you are just trolling too, but since you chose to jump on someone’s first post in the thread, I find it more objectionable)
It’s still a blow (so to speak) that according to Google, Jeff Gannon is infinitely more of a journalist than I am. Oh, the humiliation.
slartibartfast:
Looks like one a them there open letters. I really, really doubt he posted her a copy. And being a “former” foreign minister, it appears his manners are “former”, as well:
If it was a letter just to Condi I really really doubt I would have read a copy of it ;-), or could provide a link to it.
The paragraph you quote made me chuckle lots, do you feel that calling Bush “divinely guided master in the White House” is bad manners? I see it as taking the mickey, but that may be a culture clash – the Dutch are not known for their subtlety and I am very Dutch 😉
Liberal Japonicus:
Thanks for the defense (appreciated!). I don’t mind being called Dutchy. Maybe calling me a cooking pot is their way of telling me I give them mind food 😉
stop the bolding!
You have been repeatedly asking questions that have already been answered, at length – for example, you keep asking what the difference is between Helen Thomas and Gannon/Guckert, yet this has been repeatedly explained in this very thread. All you had to do was use the scrollbar and re-read the explainations until it finally sank in.
Perhaps you’re confused about a subtle difference. Just because you find something convincing doesn’t actual make it convincing. Also, mischaracterizing what I say doesn’t exactly make it more convincing. There are millions of differences between Helen Thomas and G/G, you’re problem is what they have in a common.
There are millions of differences between Helen Thomas and G/G, you’re problem is what they have in a common.
Macallan you are trolling. Your fixation on Helen Thomas could well serve as the dictionary definition for the strawman argument.
Helen Thomas is part of the furniture and she’s still there, she hasn’t resigned, her columns have not been pulled from the web and her news service is still very much in existence.
More pointedly this administration has treated her very differently than the accomodation shown Gannon/Guckert.
Why? its a simple enough question.
postit,
Either you don’t know the definition of trolling or you just think anyone who doesn’t see things your way is somehow guilty of it. As to the fixation with Ms. Thomas, that fixation seems to be with other posters. I brought it up once in direct response to a fallacious argument. Her reappearance is from posters such as yourself who keep repeating the same counterfactual assertions that continue to ignore the point made not only by me, but also the president of the White House Correspondents Association.
Ad hom shots about trolling don’t advance your argument much.
It’s still a blow (so to speak) that according to Google, Jeff Gannon is infinitely more of a journalist than I am. Oh, the humiliation.
There there. I’m sure you’re still twice the prostitute. (:
There there. I’m sure you’re still twice the prostitute. (:
Nope. Google says Gannon is 100X the prostitute.
I still have to wonder why was a male prostitute visiting the White House on a daily basis for 2 years.
How did visiting the White House affect his income and lifestyle exactly.
Wonder if a D.C. prosecutor is looking into his income. There is certainly enough cause for a warrent, wouldn’t you say?
Did GOPUSA ever pay him? If so how did it compare with his usual hourly rate ($200) his weekend rate ($1200)
More evidence that Timmy doesn’t really read what other people write.
Actually LJ, Dutchy talks about a one-party state (“virtual one-party state”), thus is if we are making an analogy about a one-party state Canada is the far better fit. Finally, LJ I knew Dutchy wasn’t from Canada (but rather from Holland), a Canadian would understand that Canada is a “one-party” (Canadians understand their history, they even remember “Dieppe”).
Wow… 4 days, 330+ comments, and the discussion hasn’t advanced even an inch from where it started. I hope y’all are at least enjoying yourselves.
kenB, this isn’t the first post on the topic JFTR
dutchie not for nothing Canada is a far better example of a one-party state than America is. I missed the structural checks and balances of the Canadian system. And despite a national scandal, I missed the change of party in your last election.
Ah, Timmy. so the problem is that you can’t assign pronouns to their proper antecedents. I stand corrected.
Actually LJ, Dutchy talks about a one-party state (“virtual one-party state”), thus is if we are making an analogy about a one-party state Canada is the far better fit.
You did realize that all that was in the blockquote was in actual fact a quote from Lloyd Axworthy? I come from a multi-party coalition government country with proportional representation and prefer that system to ‘winner takes all’ systems like the one in the States. I *do* agree with Axworty that the control one party in the US has is scary, but that is another discussion.
You know Dutchy, I’m not sure what you mean by a winner takes all system which certainly doesn’t represent the current American system of government.
I am curious as to your thoughts about the government which ruled this country in the 40s. Was it scary?
You know Dutchy, I’m not sure what you mean by a winner takes all system which certainly doesn’t represent the current American system of government.
I would have thought someone as well versed in history would understand the distinction, especially when ‘winner take all’ is placed in quotation marks. Of course, you might want Dutchmarbel to be a little more descriptive about the system, but when you have refused to explicate your posts on numerous occasions, why should she?
I don’t want Dutchy to be more descriptive, I just want to expand her horizons on the structural parameters of this here Republic.
No one’s stopping you from expounding, Timmy. Unfortunately, you seem to have that common schizophrenia that affects the self taught (which probably applies to everyone in some area, especially if they are posting on the internet) It feels that because they found the facts out by themselves, everyone should know those facts. This is probably why you claim that you are simply ‘expanding horizons’. On the other hand, you don’t seem to be confident enough to place those facts on the table, own up to them and have them discussed.
One way to get around this it to play oracle at Delphi, which you have down pat. A more useful way would be to state that this is your understanding, and you hope that someone with more information might correct you. As an example, you could have written
“Dutchmarbel, I don’t think that ‘winner take all’ is a good description of the US electoral system as there are a number of balances that prevent a true winner take all system.” However, if you had a different idea of ‘winner take all’, I hope you could set it out.”
Simple civics LJ, the three equal braches of our Federal Government combined with the role the states play in a federalist construct. Pretty simple as compared to the concetration of power in European governments and their control of certain sectors of the media. This ain’t rocket science.
Dear Dutchmarbel,
My sincere condolences that your country, unlike the US, has no independent judiciary, or a separate executive branch or even a notion of trias politica as you might say in Dutch. It must be tough. It is also unfortunate that the administrative divisions apparently have no power whatsoever, according to Timmy.
Fortunately, you don’t have a system where the candidate for president with the most electoral votes, provided that it is an absolute majority (one over half of the total), is declared president or the vice presidential candidate with the absolute majority of electoral votes is declared vice president.. That might really be called ‘winner take all’. Thank god we have Timmy to straighten us out.
“Dutchmarbel, I don’t think that ‘winner take all’ is a good description of the US electoral system as there are a number of balances that prevent a true winner take all system.” However, if you had a different idea of ‘winner take all’, I hope you could set it out.”
If one party wins the elections with 51%, they control the government and the officials there. The party with 49% has no control. In our system the control, the power, is divided over the coalition. My vote always counts and is always worth as much as the vote of someone in another part of my country.
the three equal braches of our Federal Government combined with the role the states play in a federalist construct. Pretty simple as compared to the concetration of power in European governments and their control of certain sectors of the media. This ain’t rocket science.
You may not be aware of the fact that European governments wildly vary in their governmental system and structures. My impression of rocket science is that it is more consistent, more straightforward and can be more objectively practitioned – but I stand open for experts telling me I am wrong there.
The Netherlands has less than 17 million inhabitants in an area that is slightly less than twice the size of New Jersey. It is hard to make power less concentrated and still keep a functioning country.
Why on earth do you think your government in the 40’s has anything to do with a comparison of governmental systems? Can I join the ranks of people who dislike your habit to throw in some vague rethorical questions? Why do you think I would or should find your government of the 40’s scary? FWIW; Your government in the 50’s would be a better example of scary governments if you are at all interested in my feelings on the subject.
I still have to wonder why was a male prostitute visiting the White House on a daily basis for 2 years.
How did visiting the White House affect his income and lifestyle exactly.
Given that Gannon was supposedly a profesional reporter, why did he renew his contact information?
December 2, 2004: Modification date on nude photo of Guckert (Warning: Link not work safe (male4malescorts.com)
Date determined from HTTP headers, as reported to firefox:
After begining his career as a White House reporter.
How plausible is it that no one at the White House or in White House press core noticed that he continued working as a prostitute at least through Dec 2 2004?
Why do conservative posters to this thread continue to pretend a lack of interest in this stuff?
Frank, did G/G have a backroom somewhere in the WH?
LJ, Dutchmarbel, thanks for showing us how horizons are really expanded.
If one party wins the elections with 51%, they control the government and the officials there. The party with 49% has no control.
Now which election are you talking about, since we have several every two year cycle (president, house and senate).
In our system the control, the power, is divided over the coalition. My vote always counts and is always worth as much as the vote of someone in another part of my country.
I will assume that no individual party in your last election was able to elect a PM, so a coalition is put together. Or is your system to closer to what the Israelis have?
You may not be aware of the fact that European governments wildly vary in their governmental system and structures. My impression of rocket science is that it is more consistent, more straightforward and can be more objectively practitioned – but I stand open for experts telling me I am wrong there.
Parlimentary systems, all; some with a stong party system, some with a weak; some with constitutions, some without; some with monarchs, some without; some with a strong executive, some with figurehead; did I miss something.
The Netherlands has less than 17 million inhabitants in an area that is slightly less than twice the size of New Jersey. It is hard to make power less concentrated and still keep a functioning country.
Is the EU going to be similarly structured?
Why on earth do you think your government in the 40’s has anything to do with a comparison of governmental systems?
Well in the 1940s, one party dominated our politics, a president served more than two terms and we saved you from the Huns. I’m just wondering if you remembered that.
Can I join the ranks of people who dislike your habit to throw in some vague rethorical questions? Why do you think I would or should find your government of the 40’s scary? FWIW;
You can join any ranks you want, the question was neither vague nor rhetorical, just wanted to know if you had a feel for history. Thanks for answering my question.
Your government in the 50’s would be a better example of scary governments if you are at all interested in my feelings on the subject.
Was it the Berlin airlift? Ike requiring that you give up your colonies? The Suez crisis? The Korean War? Alger Hiss & Whittaker Chambers? Brown vs Topeka? Cuba?
I would think that in the 1950s, you would be thankful that America was protecting you from the Soviets, speaking about scary governments just ask the Hungarians and the Poles about the 50s.
I forgot about the Swiss Confederation which is unique in its structure.
Well in the 1940s, one party dominated our politics, a president served more than two terms and we saved you from the Huns. I’m just wondering if you remembered that.
Wow. I was going to suggest that with ‘government of the 40’s, Timmy was implying that you are insufficiently grateful for US intervention in WWII, but I thought it was too snarky. Might be better if you went back to rhetorical questions as we won’t be so embarrassed for you.
Sorry, mixing up pronouns. Still flabbergasted by Timmy’s bald assertion. I think he, not Dutchmarbel should revert back to rhetorical questions.
LJ you were right the first time.
Dutchy should learn a little history as it would be helpful when she makes ubiquitous observations.
Timmay- Answer one of my questions and maybe I’ll answer one of yours.
Perhaps you should let Dutchmarbel know exactly what you did during WWII so she can be able to more precisely thank you for saving her country from the ‘Huns’. As for me, I will give your comments the amount of attention they so obviously deserve now that I know you believe yourself to be a suitable recipient for the gratitude that the world should feel for the existence of the United States.
On second thought Timmy that is a good question. I don’t know the answer, but I’d like to find out.
Did Gannon have a back room somewhere in the White House?
Maybe he just used the Lincoln Bedroom.
Now that we’ve established that there is a question of interest to both sides, we should push for an investigation, agreed? 🙂
“I’ll take ‘Snarky Historical Analogies’ for $200, Alex.”
“Ike requiring that you give up your colonies?”
Bzzzzt!
Sorry, Timmy: assuming you were adressing your snark to dutchmarbel, we find that the only colonies The Netherlands gave up in the relevant period you seem to be referring to were….The Dutch East Indies, which are now Indonesia; and which became independent in 1949, or four years before Dwight Eisenhower became President.
We realize this is only a minor error in a blogpost concentrating on vastly weightier matters, but as one of Obsidian Wings‘ posters opined not so long ago:
“[—] should learn a little history as it would be helpful when [–] makes ubiquitous observations.”
(Names have been redacted to protect the pseudonymous)
Thank you for playing.
Meanwhile out in the real world.
When the news is literally the party line
prostit- I think the cartoon with Putin saying he was going to have American style democracy in Russia, only with a female KGB hooker, instead of a male GOP hooker, got that across pretty well.
Jay C. the final consolidation, the fall of The Republic of South Maluku happened when?
Has anyone been keeping track of Timmy’s rhetorical questions in this thread?
Timmy:
in all seriousness, thanks for the reference in your 4:21 post. A quick Googling led me to this link:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/indo-inde.htm
where I got a very interesting recap on the subject of the Indonesian War of Independence (something about which I knew virtually nothing before) – which illuminated a lot of background on the problems going on in that country, specifically the origins of the various separatist movements, and in particular, the “Islamist” component of many of those movements, a issue which (as we have seen) has not gone away, to this day.
Also, I found out that the agreements between the Dutch and the Indonesians to end the conflict (and grant Indonesia independence) were mainly brokered by the US Security Council in 1948-49 (with strong US backing); and that the consolidation of the unitary Indonesian Republic was completed in the next year.
Oh, and to answer your question: according to the link, he Republic of South Maluku was a “breakaway” local government centered in Ambon, and existed from April through November, 1950, when it was finally supressed.
Thus, despite the educational experience, we still find that Dwight Eisenhower had nothing to do with “requiring that you [The Dutch] give up your colonies”, so, sorry, Timmy: you don’t get the $200 back in your category.
Ooops, my bad: should have been “UN Security Council” in above post. Sorry.
Can’t let the story die.
Good thinking.
Well the litmus test process for journalist maybe just beginning
It won’t be long before the chattering class has some issues with the above.
Apparently someone’s not trying all that hard.
So you think it is acceptable for a reporter at a press conference to shill for the guy behind the podium, Timmy?
Timmy behind the podium? Actually, that would sort of make sense, in an, “I come not to educate, but to confuse,” sort of way. Scott McClellan should add a few questions about “The Republic of South Maluku” to his schtick. With whatever Bush’s dream of an ideal press correspondent is in the audience to ask the follow-up.
Why do Republicans keep raising the idea of tightening requirements to get into the White House press room?
Look its perfectly clear that no one gets in that press room unless they know someone.
The topic you should be talking about is who knew Gannon and whether it was in the biblical sense.
Why do Republicans keep raising the idea of tightening requirements to get into the White House press room?
Frank, please read the article and who is pushing this agenda. As for the balance, how fragile is the media (or is it the left) that one reporter could put it at risk.
And you know this for a fact? Ok, let’s have the list: everyone who’s ever been in the press room, and who they knew.
Slarti, I think the point is: we all hoped Fishbowl would be a satisfactory test that a no-namer with no connections – nothing but a website – could, or could not, get a White House day pass. Unfortunately, it turns out Fishbowl was actually quite keen on getting into the White House, not in proving the Gannon/Garret story true or false, and that Fishbowl does have media connections – and was willing to use them.
Which still leaves it up in the air: What connections did G/G use to get a press pass? Or is it true, as Scott McLellan claims, that the day passes are handed out like candy to anyone who asks for them? Certainly until Fishbowl called upon media connections, ze was having no luck getting one.
I’m not sure what your point is, Jesurgislac. Was Fishbowl a good test of the system when he couldn’t get a press pass, but isn’t now that he has one?
This thread is about to go off the front page. I’d like another Gannon/open thread please.
I’m not sure what your point is, Jesurgislac.
If Fishbowl had got a day press pass just by asking for one, without using any connections, that would have strongly suggested McLellan’s claim was true – that G/G got a day pass just by asking, and that anyone could do that.
If Fishbowl hadn’t got a day press pass just by asking, that would have strongly suggested McLellan’s claim was false.
Unfortunately, what Fishbowl did was use media connections to get a day press pass, and this really proves nothing one way or the other. Happy for Fishbowl: sorry not to have a conclusive answer.
Does that explain my point, Slarti?
Just to finally tie up this thread, here’s Fishbowl’s comments on the process of getting a press pass.