****
I've read your posts. Certainly, you must have seen links to Kos and Mediacitizen? Your posts give the appearance of being "objective". Calm, rational, merely looking for truth. So, perhaps instead of standing in judgement of people posting in this forum, you might consider being an active member of the forum -- and seeing what is presented, yourself. It would certainly bolster your position, IMHO.
But you do raise a question: About whether or not Jeff is his real name or not. Or a nom de plume. This is a second-level attack of concern of the lefty bloggers and MSM. Have you done any actual politics before? Campaigns?
I ask because, you might then comprehend a finer level of detail in what all gets done to Republicans, routinely, when they go public. It's called "anal probe" in the common vernacular. So, what's required is a team or professionals surrounding that Republican to ensure that that person is clean, and then there's a security detail. I've seen campaigns wherein contracts with Pinkerton Agents were required. Why? To protect the Republican from "coincidental attacks". The established MSM has all these and more -- lawyers on the speed dial. Security people, etc. The MSM is saying, from what I perceive, it requires more than just the ability to write and parse in order to be a reporter. In that regard, they are right. Jeff Gannon went in as an independent. I have no doubts his security clearance was checked by the WH. Meaning, no felons, no criminal background, etc. This would also mean they knew his actual name (positing here that Jeff Gannon is his nom de plume).
Libertarians run as "independents" don't they? Yes. They do. And what is the perpetual reminder to Libertarians? Unrealism. Great on theory, impractical, nonetheless. Do libertarians, when they run for office, hire security? Hire professionals to do deep background investigations to ensure the candidate is not easily taken out by rampant rumors and insinuations and rumors? Usually not. Libertarians claim they "stand for what they stand for". Howard Dean makes the same claim, Mr. DNC Central Control.
But Dems are in cahoots with the MSM, and together they can share security and "cleaning" costs. Not to mention, cover each other's tracks when hot water appears.
IF, the allegations concerning Jeff Gannon are true, then it does appear that Democrats are no friends to Libertarians -- or those claiming to be Independent. Jeff Gannon claimed to be independent. Perhaps he used an alias to afford his family one level of protection.
Again, if you go to mediacitizen website:
http://mediacitizen.blogspot.com/2005/02/gannon-quits-after-blogger-inquiry.html
You can read the charges and allegations and view the photos, yourself.
Some of the lefty bloggers appear to assert their prime argument with Mr. Gannon is that he is a closet "gay" while writing anti-gay commentary. What in fact Mr. Gannon has said is that he does not support "gay marriage". This has nothing to do with being anti-gay. The canard is akin to those thrown at pro-lifers by feminists -- that pro-lifers hate women. It's toilet rhetoric -- every and anything goes down.
Move to the next level, and you've got another level of lefty bloggers/MSM types asserting their problem with Jeff Gannon is his (alleged) use of a nom de plume. This is a taunt from the MSM. So, we move to the third level of argument from the MSM: The Whitehouse even acknowledged an "independent" reporter in briefings. They assert this as proof of Jeff Gannon being a PLANT by the WH.
President Bush has long ago said he works with Libertarians and Independents as well as anyone from any organization, political or otherwise, who is willing and open to working with him.
Jeff Gannon is such evidence of the Bush Admin willingness and openess to work with "independents".
Wouldn't surprise me, going along here for the moment, with the allegations -- if those allegations are true, that it wasn't a big secret. And the Bush Admin still was willing to work with a reporter, possibly with "questionable" behaviors; but none criminal or felonious or traitorous. The WH did not give Jeff Gannon a "permanent" pass; Jeff Gannon got daily passes; which means those passes could be revoked at any time.
Couple this with the fact that Jeff Gannon was willing to work with the material presented in briefings by McClelland and/or President Bush. The allegation by MSM types is that Jeff Gannon is a "plant" because he was polite. The MSM considers this fact a "pro-Bush" behavior, and therefore, it must be wrong.
Why do I think Jeff Gannon quit? For exactly the reasons he cited: harassment by those who don't want him there. Despite the fact that Jeff Gannon's background has already been checked.
So, no, I don't believe the MSM nor the leftie bloggers when they claim they are for the "little guy". They aren't. They are for their own brand of politics and their own players.
The Bush Whitehouse has clearly shown, they are willing to work with those who are not of questionable security background; but the MSM and lefty bloggers, are not. That's my take.
They are for their own brand of politics and their own players.
Bam! Nailhead.
Well done Alia!
Huzzah huzzah!
Excellent!
Alia, are you referring to the alleged threats against him and his family?
I wonder why there are so many closeted conservatives? Starting with Terry Dolan of NCPAC and on through Robert Bauman, and that guy who ran part of the national GOP campaign, so many of them are gay, more than I'd expect.
I wonder why? You'd think the conservative tenets of the Right would preclude a homosexual from going to work on the conservative side...
Ed