Posted on 02/15/2005 11:19:19 PM PST by woofie
The Jeff Gannon story is still bouncing around the Internet, and now there are pictures.
The kind you shouldn't open up in the office.
The X-rated twist has made for a lot of clandestine clicking in a town where Deep Throat conjures images not of a porn star but of a man in a parking garage. But it has also deepened the debate over blogging and the tactics used to drive a conservative reporter from his job as White House correspondent for two Web sites owned by a Republican activist.
In most Beltway melodramas, the resignation ends the story. The problem for Gannon, whose real name is James Dale Guckert, is that he told The Washington Post and CNN's Wolf Blitzer last week that he never launched the Web sites whose provocative names he had registered, such as hotmilitarystud.com. But a Web designer in California said yesterday that he had designed a gay escort site for Gannon and had posted naked pictures of Gannon at the client's request.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Remember when David Brock "switched side" and started attacking conservatives? Didn't he also come out of the closet then? And didn't he become a hero because of it?
I think you're right to a point--Brock was celebrated back then, but now he's considered used goods. Liberals started thinking "this guy lied then, so why should we trust him now?"
>>You can bet if a dem obtains the WH again HateBill's dream come true will be a reality: Only journalists they want will be there.
A variant of that thought has been my comment to some Lefties on another forum.
"You want to decide who is a 'legitimate journalist' while President Bush is in office? Fine; then I get to do it the next time a Democrat is in office. And I'm doing some serious housecleaning in the White House press room."
I'm not a "big voice". I'm an informed voice and unlike leftist activists I didn't start from the premise that Gannon had been given an exception to the rule of obtaining a pass. Since those charges were lobbed, further information has been provided that reporters from a variety of news entities from across the political spectrum have in fact been admitted to ask questions.
I have said nothing more and nothing less.
You honestly think Gannon was a "ringer"? Placed there deliberately by the WH?
That is the charge I don't believe.
As to references to "press conferences" with the President...what security threat did he pose, assuming these unsavory facts are true? How many press conferences did he attend with the President present? Do you know? I do. Four. He asked two questions and was actually called on only once---this last one which started the firestorm.
His defenders like to say the reporters reported on his various scandals. They did not. They would mention the topic and proceed immediately to mitigate and explain and then produce a poll that the "American people" didn't care anyway and it was time to (say it with me) "Move on".
Nothing will ever top the rabid jackal performace of the press corps in Feb 2004 about the National Guard issue.
It was horrific. Snarling hyenas.
Anyway, I was very interested in reading Judge Sentelle expound on the meaning of "the press" and he cited the Supreme Court itself. They have found that the rights of the press are individual rights that extend to the "lonely pamphleteer" as much as they do to a media corporation.
Sentelle went on to muse that these rights presumably then extend to the "stereotypical 'blogger' sitting in his pajamas". LOL
No kidding? Do you have a link to that decision? I sure would like to read it!
U.S. Court of Appeals, In Re: Grand Jury Subpoena, Judith Miller
If my link takes you to the end (note page enumeration at bottom), scroll up to the top to start reading.
hmmm.. have you changed your diet to more brain-healthy foods?
>>Sentelle went on to muse that these rights presumably then extend to the "stereotypical 'blogger' sitting in his pajamas". LOL
LOL! That's rich! He's paying attention, obviously.
Has anyone identified any members of the MSM White House press corp that are working under pseudonyms? Even just MSM notables?
I could use some examples to help shut up some lefties.
Good find..
Oh please what?
I am correct.
Um, obviously I called it juvenile nonsense for the shallow thinking that went into it, not the pun, which I've indulged in as well on this subject (it's too tempting not to).
Your feeble attempt to draw an analogy between the grotesque charges being bandied about by the left (I am speaking, of course, of the insane allegations re the WH) and how this site would react to a leftist journalist and that we would state something as fact, as opposed to theorizing, are beyond weak.
If someone here attempts to speculate too far afield, clearly they are soon reined in and facts and documentation are presented to add to the discussion.
Gee and here the dems are screeching about how they've got religion, too.
The only side that seems to shun people is yours.
Look at how you talk about us.
tsk tsk
You were here during Clinton?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.