Say Anything Blog

It’s Wizbang.  That means the the “filty” accusations have only been debunked in Kevin Aylward’s mind.

Now, now, your Highness.  It’s the only way he’s got.  If we take that away from him, he’ll have nothing, and then we’ll lose a vast source of immense amusement.

Let’s debunk Kevin A. a bit.

Like all good propagandists and liars, Kevin is very skillful in framing the allegations as to elicit a pre-determined response.

Allegation - Jeff Gannon received a special permanent White House press “hard pass.”

Fact - The bloggers who made that allegation have now retracted it. It appears that Gannon received day passes under his real name just as he has previously indicated.

What Kevin misses is the blogger in question (John Aravois) said it *appeared* Gannon had a hard pass based upon a rather out of focus photo of Gannon wearing a pass of some kind.  Several journalists wrote in and told Aravois that the photo didn’t show a hard pass and Aravois immediately struck down his post.

Allegation - The White House should not have credentialed Gannon because he was a conservative shill not a real reporter.

Fact - Ari Fleischer, in an interview with Editor &Publisher, notes, “It is a slippery slope for any press secretary in any administration to pick and choose who gets a credential based on ideology, so long as they are a legitimate reporter.” A debate on the merits of Gannon’s journalistic credentials is beyond the scope of this post, but he certainly wrote and published stories at an online news organization, regardless of ones opinion of the relative quality of Talon News.

This is the typical InstaCracker defense: when Glenn Reynolds is demonstrated to have lied, he immediately pretends the issue is too complicated to discuss.  The E&P article interviewing Fleischer also has Fleischer stating he thought Gannon was associated with a GOP organization and not a real news outlet.

Nor is Fleischer the ultimate authority; Gannon had been repeatedly turned down by the Congressional Press Office because they, too, believed Gannon did not actually work for a real media organization.

Allegation - The White House should have know about Gannon’s sexual history and barred him from the White House.

Fact - Ari Fleischer, in an interview with Editor &Publisher, notes, “The last thing our nation needs is for anyone in the White House to concern themselves with the private lives of reporters. What right does the White House have to decide who gets to be a reporter based on private lives?”

Once more, nobody is--or should be--worried that Gannon is gay.  Not an issue.  What is at issue is that Gannon was engaged in gay prostitution (illegal in most states) and had a tax lien against him.  Plus, the fact e wasn’t a journalist and didn’t work for a real media organization.

Allegation - Gannon had full access to the White House and was running around unchecked in the White House for years.

Fact - To make it scarier the blogs perpetrating this angle of the story need to mention the sexual angle, but on its face it’s a ridiculous claim. Regardless of how you try to spin it a day pass to the White House press briefings is not an all access pass. I don’t know it for sure, but they probably hustle you right out of there when the events of the day are over.

Not a refutation of anything.

Allegation - Gannon got a press pass while others were rejected.

Fact - Gannon was denied the only passes that matter in this story - the Capital Hill pass issued by the Standing Committee of Correspondents and the White House hard pass, which allows ongoing access to the White House press briefings. The White House hard pass requires a pass first be issued by the Standing Committee of Correspondents. Gannon was left to apply for the only other type of pass available, the daily pass. The daily pass, like its name implies, is good for one day only and by all indications does not have the same restrictions as to who may receive a pass as the the others do. While goofy Maureen Dowd complains that her pass was rejected, she most certainly was writing about a hard pass or a Standing Committee pass, which Gannon too was denied. If Dowd really wanted to cover the White House she could have stood in line for day passes too…

False.  By highlighting only MoDo, Aylward ignores the fact other journalists have routinely been denied press passes, such as Russell Mokhibar and others.  Again, the day pass isn’t issued on a first come basis to just anybody.

Allegation - Gannon attended a press briefing before Talon News was founded.

Fact - This appears to be true. Gannon appears to have attended a press briefing under the auspices of GOPUSA. From Ari Fleisher’s interview it’s not hard to imagine that Talon News was created to insulate the press coverage that GOPUSA decided it wanted to do from it’s organization. This likely occurred in response to questions from Fleisher about whether GOPUSA was a party organization.

Yup.

Allegation - Gannon received the Valeria Plame memo and was subpoenaed by the special prosecutor in the Plame case.

Fact - Highly unlikely. Tom McGuire and The Washington Post’s Dan Froomkin debunk that myth pretty convincingly.

False on several levels.  First, Guckert claims he was subpoenaed.  Later, he denied it.  What appears to be the case is that Guckert was interviewed by the FBI for 90 minutes on the Plame memo.

Allegation - Gannon asked softball questions.

Fact - True. This is the essence of the Gannongate story. Gannon was “outed” (not sexually) by mainstream media types with the help of David Brock’s Media Matters For America. The reporters got their wish when Gannon quit. The bloggers continuing to pursue the story only “succeed” is they can claim a scalp besides Gannon’s, which is why they continue to search for new angles to implicated ANYONE else…

False. This is not the essence of the story.  Look, the Moonie Times routinely asks softball questions.

The essence of this story is that the WH placed a political plant in the WH press corps who happened to be a gay prostitute.

So what you are saying is that you refuse to look at any evidence which might refute what you believe to be true?

That is one way to win every argument, I suppose.

You cannot prove that he was planted by the White House.  And what’s with the continual references to his sexuality?  The White House didn’t give a damn, nor should they have.

Your response: We may have said this but it was later retracted�.

Nope, that’s a deliberate misrepresentation of what I said.  Try again.

I don’t see this as saying the issue is too complex to discuss

As Aylward wrote: “A debate on the merits of Gannon’s journalistic credentials is beyond the scope of this post,”

Again, Fleischman is not the most objective of sources.

I agree that he was interviewed by the FBI.

Then why did Aylward try to imply there was no connection between Guckert and the Plame memo?

Sigh. Lets take one last look at Kevin’s list and your responses:

Number 1:

Allegation - Jeff Gannon received a special permanent White House press “hard pass.”

Your response: We may have said this but it was later retracted”.

Good answer.  Not sure why you take offense to Kevin noting that it was alleged and showing that it was not true when you yourself just said the exact same thing.  (But it is nice to see you and Kevin getting along so well!)

Number 2:

Allegation - The White House should not have credentialed Gannon because he was a conservative shill not a real reporter.

Your response: he immediately pretends the issue is too complicated to discuss.”

What Kevin related (from Ari Fleisher) is that it is problematic to credential based on ideology and that they just try to include legitimate reporters.  I don’t see this as saying the issue is too complex to discuss.  Instead it is acknowledging that it is an inexact process. Although Gannon worked for a conservative news organization, he was at least as legitimate a reporter as Russell Mokhiber.

Number 3:

Allegation - The White House should have know about Gannon’s sexual history and barred him from the White House.

Your response: …the issue is that Gannon was engaged in gay prostitution”

Yes, and if the police knew about it, he would have been arrested for it; and then he would have had a criminal record and no press pass.  By the way, there was some very solid investigative reporting from the lefty blogs that uncovered the whole thing. (Not being sarcastic – it was solid work.) I think your position is like blaming Notre Dame for hiring O’Leary because no one knew that he lied on his resume.

Number 4:

Allegation - Gannon had full access to the White House and was running around unchecked in the White House for years.

Your Response: Not a refutation of anything.”

I agree.  Kevin would have done better to note that we know the dates for every day pass issued to Mr. “Gannon”.  I don’t think the assertion that reporters have full access to the White House needs much refuting.

Number 5:

Allegation - Gannon got a press pass while others were rejected.

Your Response: One example does not constitute proof.” You also bring up Mokhibar.

One example does not constitute proof, although Kevin does do a nice job refuting one specific complaint of the allegation.  It could probably be just as easily argued that Mokhibar received press passes while others were rejected.  I think the point is it is amazingly easy to see a conspiracy because the burden of proof is so absent.

Number 6:

Allegation - Gannon attended a press briefing before Talon News was founded.

Kevin and you agree.  Again.  (I see the seeds of a close friendship starting to develop.)

Number 7:

Allegation - Gannon received the Valeria Plame memo and was subpoenaed by the special prosecutor in the Plame case.

Your Response: False on several levels. First, Guckert claims he was subpoenaed. Later, he denied it. What appears to be the case is that Guckert was interviewed by the FBI for 90 minutes on the Plame memo.

I agree that he was interviewed by the FBI.  It doesn’t appear that he was subpoenaed though.  No one knows if he received the memo but he sure didn’t break the story.  If he was the conduit, I can see why Novak would want to protect him…after all, he is Jeff Gannon.

I’m been thinking about the swarm trying to make a connection between Plame and Gannon.  The only thing I can come up with is that Gannon is not really the victory the left thinks it really was.  But if they can somehow connect him to the White House directly, then his exposure (no pun intended) ends up (again, no pun intended) doing some real damage.  I’m not seeing any evidence of a connection (yet) but I do see a lot of wishful thinking.

Number 8:

Allegation - Gannon asked softball questions.

Your Response: This is not the essence of the story. Look, the Moonie Times routinely asks softball questions.  The essence of this story is that the WH placed a political plant in the WH press corps who happened to be a gay prostitute.

It may no longer be the essence of the story, but it was in the beginning.  Only because skeletons have been uncovered has the story changed from outrage over softballs to outrage of homosexual prostitutes.

Rob ... nicely done.  Here is a reference to Mokhiber’s comments and responses at Whitehouse press conferences. Looking at the right sidebar, it is very clear from this that uberliberals like Mokhiber were routinely given the opportunity to ask exceedingly dumb questions.  Like the one I’ve linked.

The Republican Party is officially against gay marriage.  They are not anti-gay other than for that fact.  The Vice President isn’t even against gay marriage, and many people within the party are all for equal rights.

I know that gay Republicans seem like an oxymoron to you, but that’s really not your judgement to make.  People are capable of making political decisions based on more than one issue.

It hasn’t even been proven that he was a prostitute, yet you say he is a prostitute (present tense).  I also wasn’t aware that the White House had paid him to be there.  These are not facts.

And with regard to his press pass, I don’t see why allegations of prostitution or debt would be seen as flags.  This isn’t parents hiring a babysitter.  The WH just wants to make sure he isn’t mentally unstable, a terrorist, or a possible assassin.

The biggest angle going here is that he was a very bad and very inexperienced reporter, yet he got a pass.  That doesn’t prove he’s a plant, but it makes it worth looking into.  It’s not his sex life that makes it questionable, it is his skills as a reporter.  It very well may be shown that he was a plant, but don’t state it as fact until you know it for sure.

You cannot prove that he was planted by the White House.

Yes, I can.  The day passes issued to journalists are not issued to anybody wandering in off the street on a first-come basis.  Think about that; do you really believe any nutcase can walk up, get a day pass, and have a chance to get within a dozen feet of various WH spokespeople, cabinet officers and the President?

Of course not.  One has to have passed some security background check to become eligible to get a day pass.  Now, being more than passingly familiar with security clearances, certainly Guckert’s IRS troubles would have popped up immediately as a red flag. Taking a look at Guckert’s employment history would have turned up Guckert’s male “escort” gig.

No reasonable person could believe a clearance would be granted in circumstances such as these without some help from the WH.

And what’s with the continual references to his sexuality?

As I’ve noted, Guckert’s sexuality isn’t and shouldn’t be an issue.  What is at issue is that Guckert is a gay prostitute.  I question why you can’t understand the distinction.

Plus, it’s ironic that a WH and political party that is so anti-gay and pro-values has in it’s employ a gay prostitute.

Great points Mark, except for the prostitute angle.  I’ve seen the evidence that has been unearthed and it is very compelling.  It definitely was not common knowledge though.

The Republican Party is officially against gay marriage. They are not anti-gay other than for that fact. The Vice President isn’t even against gay marriage, and many people within the party are all for equal rights.

I’m sure there are gay GOPers and I’m sure there are GOPers who could care less if someone is gay, straight or whatever.

The problem is that the GOP does pander to the anti-gay types; I really don’t believe this in dispute.  And it goes far beyond gay marriage (think about it: a Constitutional Amendment to effectively ban gay marriage??)--think about anti-gay judicial nominees, the nonsense about “gay” cartoon characters, taxpayer funding of groups that discriminate against gays, etc.

It hasn’t even been proven that he was a prostitute,

Offering to have sex with strangers for money is what, Mark?  Surely, you’ve seen his ads--right?  There are even testimonials by satisfied clients.

And with regard to his press pass, I don’t see why allegations of prostitution or debt would be seen as flags.

Debt is one flag; in and of itself, not a disqualifying flag.  I think security screeners would view an IRS lien as more serious than someone who had maxed out his credit cards, though.  The rationale for debt as a flag is that there is a concern that someone who is in debt may be susceptible to a bribe.

Gay prostitution--what more can I say? It’s an illegal activity.  Peple engaging in illegal activities aren’t supposed to get clearances.  I’ve seen DUIs end careers because clearances get pulled.

The biggest angle going here is that he was a very bad and very inexperienced reporter, yet he got a pass.

No, that’s just an aside.  Frankly, there are a lot of bad reporters--some have WH press passes.  The story here is the fact Guckert worked for a GOP campaign outfit and posed as a reporter.  Given the fact this WH hasn’t been shy about spending money to buy journalists--that’s the angle.

Granted, the evidence for his having at one time been a prostitute is strong, so I’m willing to assume that one.  What is uncertain is whether this would have even come up in a background check, as many have said.  I don’t think there has been an answer on that.

You equate DUI with prostitution?  I’d argue against that.  DUI is reckless behavior that puts lives in danger.  Prostitution, although morally reprehensible to me, is sex between consenting adults, with money exchanged directly instead of given in the form of dinners and diamond rings.  It may not be something to be proud of, but it is nowhere near the level of a DUI.

Again with the money.  Has it been shown that Gannon has any direct financial ties to the White House?

What is uncertain is whether this would have even come up in a background check, as many have said.

Hey, a couple people on the internet(s) with access to Google and Whois came up with a lot of detail on Guckert.  I strongly suspect the folks doing background checks at DSS have access to far better tools.

You equate DUI with prostitution?

I never made any comparison. The point I was trying to convey is that DSS views any criminal behavior in a very negative light.

Unless Gannon had actually been arrested for prostitution some time in his past it wouldn’t come up on any standard background check.  Finding that information out would require some digging, probably some phone calls and knocking on doors as well.

All assumptions about our government’s “Big Brother” tendencies aside, I doubt very much that the White House puts that much effort into checking any reporter’s background.  And, really, can you imagine the media storm that would take place if reporters knew their backgrounds were being that thoroughly checked?  They’d no doubt refer to such background checks as having a “chilling” effect on journalistic free speech.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Again, Rob, the DSS would likely check out the nature of Gannon’s business.

I don’t imagine fees from prostitution show up on W-2s.

Even with a SSN, if he was never arrested for prostitution it wouldn’t show up on any sort of a record search.  That info would have to be gained through contacts with folks from Gannon’s past.

Like I said, I find it unlikely that they do any such thing for reporters.  Though it would be interesting to know the vetting process.  That could end a lot of this debate.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Unless Gannon had actually been arrested for prostitution some time in his past it wouldn’t come up on any standard background check.

Gee, Rob, how did some amateurs find him out?

Imagine what they could have done with a SSN.

JadeGold:  I am really confused about what it is you are exactly claiming.  Maybe I am not reading you clearly, but it sure seems like you are walking in circles.

Is it your suggestion that the White House knowingly gave a press pass to a “gay prostitute”?  (BTW, I am making no claim about Gannon’s past, this is just a hypothetical.) Or that the White House didn’t fully vet him?

It’s been my impression for a while that the White House does a very poor job with its press relations (I put as much blame for the so-called media bias on the WH as the media orgnizations).  This just looks like another public relations blunder to me.  Which is to say, so what is the BFD?

I’m sorry Jadegold, but I don’t see the White House spending the time to dig that deeply into Gannon’s past.  Like I said, it would be interesting to know the vetting process.

But really, why on earth would the White House knowingly pick someone of Gannon’s past as a plant?  If the White House were looking for a plant it seems there should be plenty of people willing to shill with less checkered pasts.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Imagine what they could have done with a SSN.

They GOT his SSN.  That’s how they found a lot of stuff out.  They posted his f***ing SSN on the comments of one of the blogs (I think it was Atrios, but don’t quote me).

But really, what good is an SSN when you’re looking for a crime someone hasn’t even been convicted of?  From experience I can tell you that SSN’s are useful for pulling up all sorts of information, but if you’re looking for something like gay escort activity you have to do more than run computer records.  This requires phone calls and knocking on doors.

Clearly, the White House didn’t do that.  And while I may be mistaken, I’m inclined to believe that they don’t go this deep for any journalists issued a press pass.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Yeah, consider their goal.  It’s not to find “dirt.” It is to find potential security threats.

No Rob,

We can continue to call for Hume’s resignation for his blatant manipulation, while asking the applicable questions connected to the next embarrassing Gannon revelation.

It ain’t over, till it’s over.

Yeah, Bill from INDC pretty much covered your ridiculous little crusade against Brit Hume on his blog.  Why don’t you toddle on over and gain a true understanding of just how incredibly silly you look?  Or (if you’re in a really masochistic mood) you could wander on over to MyPetJawa for a truly delicious piece of humor.

Go on now.  I’ll be here waiting for you to stagger back yelling “Racist!” the way you Leftards always do when you run up against a viewpoint not exactly like your own.

Not before you claim that Hume hasn’t been proven to have manipulated and distorted the FDR quote?

Silly, is a party of James Dobson and Gay Marriage Ban, accusing the Left of ‘gay bashing’, or calling us ‘racist’ for holding Condi Rice accountable.

Ridiculing someone, btw, is not an effective way of making a convincing argument.

Clive Tolson,

Gay people as a rule shouldn’t trust either major American party.  Of course at least with the Republicans you know they want to stick you jail for screwing other consenting adults.

"I’m sorry Jadegold, but I don’t see the White House spending the time to dig that deeply into Gannon’s past”

The misconception here is that it’s not the WH that does background investigations--it’s DSS.

“But really, why on earth would the White House knowingly pick someone of Gannon’s past as a plant?”

Why would the WH try to put Bernie Kerik in as a cabinet secretary?

Silly, is a party of James Dobson and Gay Marriage Ban, accusing the Left of ‘gay bashing’, or calling us ‘racist’ for holding Condi Rice accountable.

If you want to crow about James Dobson you’re barking up the wrong tree.  I think the man is silly, and I support gay marriage.

As for racism, I’ll stop short of calling the left racist because painting groups with broad strokes like that is dumb...but the people calling her “Aunt Jemima” weren’t on the right side of the political spectrum.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

The misconception here is that it’s not the WH that does background investigations–it’s DSS.

Ok, I wasn’t aware of that.  But still, does DSS dig that deeply?  I’d like to know more about their vetting process for journalist.

Why would the WH try to put Bernie Kerik in as a cabinet secretary?

Stupidity would be my guess.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

If you want to crow about James Dobson you’re barking up the wrong tree. I think the man is silly,

but the people calling her “Aunt Jemima� weren’t on the right side of the political spectrum

See what you did there Rob?

At best, it can be called contradictory. At worse, it can be called hypocrisy.

I’m suppose to accept your exonerating yourself from James Dobson, but then you go and group everyone on the Left (including me), with someone calling Rice ‘Aunt Jemima’.

You’d probably think it was wrong to discharge needed Arab linguists because they were gay, but any questions of how a man leading a lifestyle known to be a harbinger for blackmail and extortion, is dismissed as a ‘filthy accusations’

Even if you see it Rob, I know you won’t admit it. But, such hypocrisy the Right has displayed on this scandal, has really hurt you.

Hypocritical?  The left’s big question in all of this is “Why was a gay man allowed to question the Presdient.  That’s hypocritical.”

Which apparently means that the White House Press Office is supposed to start checking the sexuality of reporters admitted to the press room.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Heh… he grouped the people calling Rice “Aunt Jemima” with… the people calling Rice “Aunt Jemima.” Last I checked 1 still equaled 1.

It seems that Clive is the one who is needlessly grouping people… grouping Rob with Dobson, which is one of the funniest things I’ve heard all week.

Clive Tolson says, “but then you go and group everyone on the Left (including me), with someone calling Rice ‘Aunt Jemima’.”

Tell me Clive, where did Rob say that?  HE DIDN’T.

Right.  Me, the pro-porn atheist gets lumped in with the evangelical moralist.

Nice.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

"Right. Me, the pro-porn atheist gets lumped in with the evangelical moralist.”

It’s your party, Rob.  Frankly, it’s disingenuous for you to carry the water for Bush but continue to deny this is part and parcel of Bush’s agenda.

Jadegold says It’s your party, Rob. Frankly, it’s disingenuous for you to carry the water for Bush but continue to deny this is part and parcel of Bush’s agenda.

What I find particularly odd with the new left is that you guys all function lock-stepped, and you seem really puzzled when the rest of us embrace a plurality of view points.

Just like Rob, I don’t expect Bush or any other leader to have exactly the same ideas that I have, and I am even willing to entertain the possibility that sometimes Bush is right on things that I disagree strongly with him on.

Jadegold,

The constitutional ban is dead in the water in light of the state of the Senate at this point.

The whole “religious right� won the campaign for Bush meme has been thoroughly de-bunked

I doubt it; most of the so-called “debunking” has taken the form of talking heads giving opinion and not any hard evidence. 

But we can see the results: more appointments of religious wingnuts, reintroducing the Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage, the nominations for the bench, etc.

Folks like Dobson and Falwell and Robertson have enormous clout in the GOP.

This may be your perception However, the demographics suggest that perhaps 20% of those who voted for Bush in 2004 are active members of groups like Dobson’s.  This doesn’t translate into “enormous clout”.

Bush routinely appoints whackjobs from these various groups to Govt. positions and judgeships.

Good illustration of the dangers in blindly accepting as fact the propaganda from your own party.

Taxpayer money is also funnelled [sic] to these folks.

I suppose you are referring to the faith-based initiative?  It is much more clever, in my opinion, than a simple buy-out program for the religious right.  (BTW, I don’t get shocked when politicians act political.)

Jadegold,

The whole “religious right” won the campaign for Bush meme has been thoroughly de-bunked.  The argument was more the wishful thinking of elements of both the left and right.

This may be your perception However, the demographics suggest that perhaps 20% of those who voted for Bush in 2004 are active members of groups like Dobson’s. This doesn’t translate into “enormous clout�.

Let’s see; 20% in races where the difference between winning and losing is 2% or less?

Good illustration of the dangers in blindly accepting as fact the propaganda from your own party

Want a list?

I suppose you are referring to the faith-based initiative?

A bit more insidious than that.  But the danger here is a Constitutional one.

What I find particularly odd with the new left is that you guys all function lock-stepped, and you seem really puzzled when the rest of us embrace a plurality of view points.

Here’s the difference you’re missing: so-called family values and Xtian superstition are a major part of the GOP agenda.  Folks like Dobson and Falwell and Robertson have enormous clout in the GOP.  Bush routinely appoints whackjobs from these various groups to Govt. positions and judgeships. Taxpayer money is also funnelled to these folks.

Nobody agrees with his or her party 100%.  But since this aspect of the GOP occupies such a prominent position in the GOP, it is dishonest to pretend a vote for the GOP isn’t a vote for the theocracy they envision.

The constitutional ban is dead in the water in light of the state of the Senate at this point.

Understood. And you better believe Karl Rove knows it as well.  So, why then do you think Bush would expend political capital on a measure he knows has no chance of success?

Why doesn’t Bush just say, ‘hey, we fought the good fight but we have no hope of ever getting this Amendment into the Constitution’?

Your answer lies in the need to appease the Xtian right.

I doubt it; most of the so-called “debunking� has taken the form of talking heads giving opinion and not any hard evidence.

Actually the evidence is there.  You just have to go look for it.  And Gary is correct, the data support the contention that the religious right did not win it for Bush.

Understood. And you better believe Karl Rove knows it as well. So, why then do you think Bush would expend political capital on a measure he knows has no chance of success?

I think you are going in circles again.  It wasn’t the RR that he was targeting with his proposed amendment.  It was a clever strategy from Bush’s perspective.  The majority of both Republicans and Democrats opposed gay marriage.  The “why he did it” is obvious when you look at the demographics.

I don’t think anyone can deny that Bush’s support of the amendment was pandering, because it was obvious that it wouldn’t pass.  But it wasn’t pandering to righties… it was pandering to the 60 something percent of Americans who are against gay marriage.  And it’s not like it’s not something he believes in.  Although I am critical of his support of said amendment, I can’t say that it went against his principles.

So tell me, did any of you wing-nuts take the high road when it came to Monica? Did you let that pass as something between husband and wife? I ask this because all the “foaming at the mouth far right wing-nut homophobes” out there, who can’t get passed what others do in the bedroom, all of sudden are acting like having an administration sanctioned male prostitute in the White House for over 2 years is absolutely nothing to be concerned about! Give me a break! Who gave him his daily passes, McClellan? Rove? Someone did it...the question is who? And yes, it is very newsworthy. Maybe you all just can’t handle the notion that you’re being controlled by a closeted gay mafia...or maybe you do like....huh?

Klad spits out, “So tell me, did any of you wing-nuts take the high road when it came to Monica? Did you let that pass as something between husband and wife?”

You mean the perjury and lying under oath?

I ask this because all the “foaming at the mouth far right wing-nut homophobes� out there, who can’t get passed what others do in the bedroom, all of sudden are acting like having an administration sanctioned male prostitute in the White House for over 2 years is absolutely nothing to be concerned about!

Oh,..so it’s confirmed now that he was a “prostitute”?

Maybe you all just can’t handle the notion that you’re being controlled by a closeted gay mafia…or maybe you do like….huh?

This is a pretty kooky comment.

You mean the perjury and lying under oath?

There was a conviction for perjury? No, Likwud.  In fact, Clinton was never even charged with that.

Oh,..so it’s confirmed now that he was a “prostitute�?

Let’s see: offering to have sex with strangers for money? Check.  Testimonials from satisfied johns? Check.

Pretty conclusive evidence.  BTW, the websites are still up in case you’re..um...interested.

acting like having an administration sanctioned male prostitute in the White House for over 2 years is absolutely nothing to be concerned about!

The White House had no knowledge of Gannon’s sexual activites.  They do not inquire as to sexual orientation and he had no prostitution charges on his criminal record.  Thus, the White House did not “sanction” any such thing.

Pretty conclusive evidence. BTW, the websites are still up in case you’re..um…interested.

Oh, that’s great Jadegold.  Crack gay jokes.

And we’re the intolerant ones.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

The fact this guy is gay is important because?