Once again the left have pinned there hopes of toppling President Bush on a dud "scandal".
Andrew Sullivan summed it up well by saying:
"The substantive case against Gannon is trivial; the irrelevant case against him (the one that's fueled this story) is that he's gay, has allegedly been (or still may be) a prostitute, and may not agree with everything the gay left believes (although I agree with David Corn that the evidence that Gannon has written anything even remotely "anti-gay" is laughable).
The real scandal is the blatant use of homophobic rhetoric by the self-appointed Savonarolas of homo-left-wingery. It's an Animal Farm moment: the difference between a fanatic on the gay left and a fanatic on the religious right is harder and harder to discern.
Just ask yourself: if a Catholic conservative blogger had found out that a liberal-leaning pseudo-pundit/reporter was a gay sex worker, had outed the guy as gay and a "hooker," published pictures of the guy naked, and demanded a response from a Democratic administration, do you think gay rights groups would be silent? They'd rightly be outraged. But the left can get away with anything, can't they? Especially homophobia."
The recent letter from 4 Democrack senators to the President requested an investigation of the Gannon issue. They said,
Given the unprecidented level of security in Washington since 9/11, it is troubling that a non-journalist using a false name and working for a sham news organization could have gained regular access to the White House for such an extended period of time.
Who are they suggesting should verify whether someone is a bonafide journalist? Perhaps the administration should set up some standardized tests that anyone wanting to be certified as a journalist must pass. The Freedom of the Press was established so that anyone who wanted to publish their perspective would be free to do so. There was never anything in the law that discriminated between one 'journalist' and another.
And they are pitching a hissie fit over the fact that Gannon somehow had ties to the Republican Party.
We have also learned that the questions he posed at White House press briefings ... < snip > ... and the stories he filed for Talon News frequently mirrored Republican Part talking points, that the Talon News agency is a news organization in name only and that it has apparently close connections to the Republican Party.
How is this different from Stephanopolis, Carville, and the plethora of Clintonites appearing nightly as 'journalists' on national news?
