Republicans, bloggers and gays, oh my!(Ann Coulter)

wnd.com ^ | February 23, 2005 | Ann Coulter

[perfect stranger]

Posted: February 23, 2005 1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2005 Universal Press Syndicate

In response to the public disgrace and ruin of New York Times editor Howell Raines, CBS anchor Dan Rather and CNN news director Eason Jordan, liberals are directing their fury at the blogs. Once derided as people sitting around their living rooms in pajamas, now obscure writers for unknown websites are coming under more intensive background checks than CIA agents.

The heretofore-unknown Jeff Gannon of the heretofore-unknown "Talon News" service was caught red-handed asking friendly questions at a White House press briefing. Now the media is hot on the trail of a gay escort service that Gannon may have run some years ago. Are we supposed to like gay people now, or hate them? Is there a website where I can go to and find out how the Democrats want me to feel about gay people on a moment-to-moment basis?

Liberals keep rolling out a scrolling series of attacks on Gannon for their Two Minutes Hate, but all their other charges against him fall apart after three seconds of scrutiny. Gannon's only offense is that he may be gay.

First, liberals claimed Gannon was a White House plant who received a press pass so that he could ask softball questions – a perk reserved for New York Times reporters during the Clinton years. Their proof was that while "real" journalists (like Jayson Blair) were being denied press passes, Gannon had one, even though he writes for a website that no one has ever heard of – but still big enough to be a target of liberal hatred! (By the way, if writing for a news organization with no viewers is grounds for being denied a press pass, why do MSNBC reporters have them?)

On the op-ed page of the New York Times, Maureen Dowd openly lied about the press pass, saying: "I was rejected for a White House press pass at the start of the Bush administration, but someone with an alias, a tax evasion problem and Internet pictures where he posed like the 'Barberini Faun' is credentialed?"

Press passes can't be that hard to come by if the White House allows that dyspeptic, old Helen Thomas to sit within yards of the president. Still, it would be suspicious if Dowd were denied a press pass while someone from "Talon News" got one, even if he is a better reporter.

But Dowd was talking about two different passes without telling her readers (a process now known in journalism schools as "Dowdification"). Gannon didn't have a permanent pass; he had only a daily pass. Almost anyone can get a daily pass – even famed Times fantasist Maureen Dowd could have gotten one of those. A daily pass and a permanent pass are altogether different animals. The entire linchpin of Dowd's column was a lie. (And I'm sure the Times' public editor will get right on Dowd's deception.)

Finally, liberals expressed shock and dismay that Gannon's real name is "James Guckert." On MSNBC's "Hardball," Chris Matthews introduced the Gannon scandal this way: "Coming up, how did a fake news reporter from a right-wing website get inside the White House press briefings and presidential news conferences?"

Reporter David Shuster then gave a report on "the phony alias Guckert used to play journalist" – as opposed to the real name Shuster uses to play journalist. (You can tell Schuster is a crackerjack journalist because he uses phrases like "phony alias.") With all the subtlety of a gay-bashing skinhead, Matthews spent the rest of the segment seeing how many times he could smear Gannon by mentioning "HotMilitaryStuds.com" and laughing.

Any day now, Matthews will devote entire shows to exposing Larry Zeigler, Gerald Riviera and Michael Weiner – aka Larry King, Geraldo Rivera and Matthews' former MSNBC colleague Michael Savage. As a newspaper reporter, Wolf Blitzer has written under the names Ze'ev Blitzer and Ze'ev Barak. The greatest essayist of modern times was Eric Blair, aka George Orwell. The worst essayist of modern times is "TRB" of The New Republic.

Air America radio host and "Nanny" impersonator "Randi Rhodes" goes by a fake name, and she won't even tell people what her real last name is. (She says for "privacy reasons." That name must be a real doozy.) As Insideradio.com describes Rhodes, she refuses "to withhold anything from her listeners" and says conservatives "are less likely to share such things." How about sharing your name, Randi? We promise not to laugh.

Democrats in Congress actually demanded that an independent prosecutor investigate how Gannon got into White House press conferences while writing under an invented name. How did Gary Hartpence, Billy Blythe and John Kohn (Gary Hart, Bill Clinton and John Kerry) run for president under invented names? Admittedly, these men were not reporters for the prestigious "Talon News" service; they were merely Democrats running for president.

Liberals keep telling us the media isn't liberal, but in order to retaliate for the decimation of major news organizations like the New York Times, CBS News and CNN, all they can do is produce the scalp of an obscure writer for an unknown conservative Web page. And unlike Raines, Rather and Jordan, they can't even get Gannon for incompetence on the job. (Also unlike Raines, Rather and Jordan, Gannon has appeared on television and given a series of creditable interviews in his own defense, proving our gays are more macho than their straights.)

Gannon didn't write about gays. No "hypocrisy" is being exposed. Liberals' hateful, frothing-at-the-mouth campaign against Gannon consists solely of their claim that he is gay.

[Askel5]

=== Just because you disagree with someone doesn't mean you have to use derogatory terms. If it did, I might be inclined to call you something rather nasty.


Oh for pete's sake ... let 'er rip. It's a Coulter thread after all.

When in Rome ...

[xm177e2]

Just like legal abortion, "don't ask, don't tell" is a GOP policy.

Yup. George W. Bush only pretends to be a dumb hick when he's giving speeches.

I'm not being sarcastic, either. Look back at the first political race he lost. He was made fun of by the Dem as a little rich boy from elite schools, out of touch with common Texans. Ever since, he's out-dumbed his opponent.

I'm not just making this stuff up! Follow the link and see for yourself.

"In 1961, when [Democratic candidate] Kent Hance graduated from Dimmitt High School in the 19th congressional district, his opponent George W. Bush was attending Andover Academy in Massachusetts. In 1965, when Kent Hance graduated from Texas Tech, his opponent was at Yale University," one particularly devastating radio ad went. "And while Kent Hance graduated from the University of Texas Law School, his opponents -- get this folks -- was attending Harvard. We don't need someone from the Northeast telling us what are problems are."

---

Do a simple game-theory analysis of what decisions Bush should make: (the score refers to the value to Bush and the GOP in terms of future republican turnout vs. dem turnout)

Bush's Decision:	Effect on Conservatives	Effect on Liberals	Total Value
Talk about Right-wing Economic policies:	Conservatives feel good. +1	Liberals feel bad. -1	0
Enact Right-wing Economic policies:	Bush's rich friends get richer. Direct benefit. +10	Liberals get mad, but don't really understand what's going on (economics are hard to explain and are confusing) -3	+7
Talk about Right-wing Social policies:	Conservatives feel very good +5	Liberals feel very bad -2	+3
Enact Right-wing Social policies:	Conservatives satisfied, content, complacent, maybe worry they've gone too far -5	Liberals get angry, actually get off their butts and vote -5	-10

So it benefits Bush more to actually get economic reforms passed, but just give lip service to social reform.

This isn't to say that conservative economic policies aren't good for the nation (I certainly think they are), or to say that Bush is choosing badly (I don't think so).

You don't have to agree with the choices Bush has made with regard to economic vs. social issues to agree that this analysis correctly describes why Bush is making these choices.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

No, I won't take the bait.

If I were to speak my mind, I would be banned.

Suffice it to say, I hold an exceptionally low opinion of you and think you should be ashamed of yourself for acting like a petulant child. However since I doubt you have the insight to see just how foolish you are being, I won't hold my breath.

[Askel5]

"You're just jealous"

Why is it that the average reply on FR these days reeks of some elementary school playground?

I think you all spend too much time reading the likes of Coulter.

[dominic7]

I just can't agree with that then again I'm not a big fan of AC. Fact is I've never found her very funny. She is far from a great political columnist or satarist as one very close friend (my wife) tried to convince me.

I'll say it again the longer this story stays alive the more dangerous it becomes.

There is no defence that can be mounted for this guy IMO, he's a creep period. He sold himself as a gay marine think about how disrespectful that is and then defend him.

[Archon of the East]

"Liberals hate religion because politics is a liberal substitute and they can't stand the competition."

Ann told me that personally just the other day

[Babu]

Since FR is "beneath you" in your opinion, just SCRAM TROLL. Go back to DUmmie where you belong.

I think you spend too much time reading the likes of Coulter.
False. I don't spend near enough time reading the likes of Coulter ...

[pissant]

a) Ann knows as much or more about the constitution as any other "constitutionalist" pundit on TV or in any major paper

b) The top GOP'ers gay agenda must be well hid if they support an Amendment to the constitution to keep marraige from gay clutches.

c) Gannon's questions were no more idiotic or editorialist than any other lame WH press reporter's. Only his slanted right, not left.

d) I was one of the first freepers to say if Gannon's gayporn websites were reality (only rumours at the time), then he deserved to be drummed out of the press corps, and pronto.

[Lijahsbubbe]

bttt

[TheForceOfOne]

Yummy! conservative candy!

[Askel5]

=== However since I doubt you have the insight to see just how foolish you are being,


Better than insight, I have the facts to prove what fools you all be.

[Mo1]

Excellent article Ann

And that fact it will drive the loons nuts is even better

[Neets]

You sure sound a bit wound up tonite toots.

Can I knock your socks off by telling you that you and I have reached a "common ground", so to speak?

I'm too tired to get into it right now, but maybe tomorrow I'll fill you in.

Just tone down a bit on the other rhetoric and your Barbara Bush thing, ok?

[general_re]

I have posted a link above to a thread chock full of evidence...

You have posted a link to a thread that was lifted verbatim from this page, which in turn belongs to this site, which in turn links to the following, labeling them "The New Resistance":

Alternet
Animal Liberation Front
Antiwar.com
Anarchist Yellow Pages
Black Bloc
Billboard liberation
Bush Watch
Cassiopaea
Center for Research on Globalization
Civil Liberties / Rights
Cop vs CIA
Counterpunch
Coup 2K
Covert Action Quarterly
Cryptome
Culture Jamming
Cyberwar / Infowar
David Icke
Democracy Now!
Democracy Underground
Disinfo.com
Earth Liberation Front
Federation of American Scientists
CitizensForLegitGovt
Encryption/Cypherpunks
Environmentalism
Hacktivism
Hacktivismo
Hacktivism/COTDC
Hacktivism 2
Indymedia
Information Clearing House
Infoshop.org
Infowars.com
LibertyThink
Lumpen
Mad Cow Morning News
Memes.org
News Insider
News From Babylon
Name Base Research Tool
Raise the Fist
Rense
Parascope
Propaganda Matrix
Eric Jon Phelps
REVOLUTION!
Rukus Society
Terrorism= Freedom Fighting
Creative Vandalism
Scoop
Noam Chomsky (archive)
Skolnick's Report
Society of Spectacle
Temp'ryAutonomousZone
Too Stupid to be President
Totse.com
Unanswered Questions
Vatican Assassins
voxnews.com
Virtual Activist
What Really Happened
The White House (whitehouse.org)

Strange company you keep, m'lady...

[Neets]

OUCH!

[Askel5]

=== Ann knows as much or more about the constitution as any other "constitutionalist" pundit on TV or in any major paper


Isn't it odd how she's mum when most we need a constitutional scholar or two to pipe up with something more substantive than: "You must vote for Bush no matter what he does."

But I guess, as this defense of hypocrite swingers and sex profiteers proves, she's got better things to do.


=== =c) Gannon's questions were no more idiotic or editorialist than any other lame WH press reporter's. Only his slanted right, not left.

I appreciate this comment very much. Many seem to believe there is some difference between right and left. As Ann argues herein, we're absolutely entitled to avail ourselves of their peculiar brand of hypocrisy.

Quite frankly, as offputting as I find MOST White House Press Corps (I was there to protest them for two years with the DC Chapter ... it was like watching freaks from some Fellini film trail in), I still think Gannon's questions set the standard for unprofessionalism.

The fact he was a "favorite" of the Administration's press rep and is being defended by Coulter speaks volumes.

As we "stoop to conquer" by adopting the left's losing tactics (per instruction from the "former radical" but still atheist pro-abort Whoreowitz), we might want to give some thought to who, exactly, is being conquered here.

I don't care how sexy (MORE PICS PLEASE) is the Coulter blade, I hate to see folks falling on it.

[AZ_Cowboy]

Did any of you notice that tomorrow is the Full Moon? It isn't random if you think about it.

[Radix]

"(By the way, if writing for a news organization with no viewers is grounds for being denied a press pass, why do MSNBC reporters have them?)"

Ha, I was flipping through the channels some time back and stopped because I heard a familiar voice.

Ann Coulter was talking with Phil Donahue on MSNBC!

[Askel5]

You -- like most on this thread -- have not been around long to know that Wallaby's research (originally posted on this site back when this site was a no-holds-barred opponent of institutionalized government corruption and defender of Substantive and enduring TRUTHS) was lifted and posted to those other sites.

Check the dates.

And think twice before you indict me with associations to indy bloggers with checkered pasts on a thread wherein Coulter is kissing Gannon's ass.