Jeff Gannon Part 2

[RandFan]

I think Ann Coulter makes some valid points in her column today. Now I know that Ann Coulter engenders some very strong emotions and not necessarily without cause. However this thread is not about Ann Coulter. By all means attack her logic (assuming there is any) but keep to the point (assuming anyone cares).

Questions:

• Does the fact That Jeff Gannon is gay have any relevance whatsoever? Isn't pointing out the fact that he is gay (assuming he is) and ran a male prostitution ring (escort service) character assassination (politics of hate) and antithetical to liberal and democrat values?
  
• Does the fact that he changed his name have any relevance? As Ann points out changing ones name is common for politicians, entertainers and even journalists including Gary Hart, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Wolf Blitzer, Randi Rhodes and even George Orwell.

FWIW I think it very likely the guy was inserted by the Whitehouse and the whole affair was an orchestrated mess (typical Bush Amdin Cluster F***).

 

[crimresearch]

I thought that 'Gay Prostitute Jeff Gannon' was his full name.

 

[Donks]

Does the fact That Jeff Gannon is gay have any relevance whatsoever? Isn't pointing out the fact that he is gay (assuming he is) and ran a male prostitution ring (escort service) character assassination (politics of hate) and antithetical to liberal and democrat values?

Is running a prostitution ring legal where he did it? If no, then how did he pass the background check? If yes, then it probably isn't relevant.

Does the fact that he changed his name have any relevance? As Ann points out changing ones name is common for politicians, entertainers and even journalists including Gary Hart, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Wolf Blitzer, Randi Rhodes and even George Orwell.

Why did he change his name? If it was changed with the explicit purpose of hiding his past when he became a whitehouse reporter, then it is relevant.

 

[kimiko]

Questions:

• Does the fact That Jeff Gannon is gay have any relevance whatsoever? Isn't pointing out the fact that he is gay (assuming he is) and ran a male prostitution ring (escort service) character assassination (politics of hate) and antithetical to liberal and democrat values?
  
• Does the fact that he changed his name have any relevance? As Ann points out changing ones name is common for politicians, entertainers and even journalists including Gary Hart, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Wolf Blitzer, Randi Rhodes and even George Orwell.

The fact that he is gay has to do with Republican hypocrisy, not Democratic bigotry. Republicans push amending the Constitution to specifically discriminate against gays and a large group of their constituents are morally opposed to them. So to have a gay man as their stooge is hypocritical. I have seen Democrats saying it isn't relevant, and repeating it as if there is something wrong about it is damaging, and I agree. The other part of that is that he was a prostitute, which again is antithetical to the values of a considerable number of Republicans.

Changing his name has relevance because unlike the above mentioned politicians who are using shortened versions of their given names, or entertainers/newspeople who are using better sounding names, his seems to be to covering up a sordid past.

Coulters' claim that Dowd's argument was a lie is questionable. I would like to know how often people with one day press passes get called on to ask questions by the President.

Edited to add: Republicans are also the ones primarily against gays in the military and his prostitution ring was gay military men.

 

[corplinx]

I prefer what David Corn of The Nation (a drasticly different source than Ann Coulter) had to say.

David is a great columnist who recently wrote a book called "The Lies of George W. Bush". He has some really keen insights on the Gannon situation and corrects many of the distortions and hyperbole from the blogosphere.

Edited to add: the previous column he links in that one should be read for even more great insights where he debunks notions that Gannon was a "lifeline" for press conferences and some of the other woo from the blogosphere.

 

[Lurker]

Well, I have already said on another thread that I have no problem with him changing his name.

As for the gay angle, I don't care much about that other than him possibly being involved in illegal activities and his hypocrisy, having written columns that were anti-gay.

I have not read Coulter's column but I predict it will minimize the true problems with Gannon and maximize the ones you mentioned and then Ann will declare how ridiculous liberals are.

Going to post this now and see if my prediction is correct. Randi, you may owe me $1M

Lurker

 

[RandFan]

Re: Re: Jeff Gannon Part 2

The fact that he is gay has to do with Republican hypocrisy, not Democratic bigotry.

So let me make sure I'm clear on this. Any gay republican is worthy of redicule and his sexual orientation is an issue because of hypocricy in the Republican party? Are you serious?

 

[crimresearch]

How is 'Clinton' a shortened version of 'Blythe'?

I thought it was his step-father's name?

 

[hgc]

I agree with Coulter that the two issues she focused on are not all that important to the Jeff Gannon affair.

The issue of the Bush Admin creating pseudo-news through fakery and fraud is the real issue here.

 

[Lurker]

Yep, I was right. A majority of Coulter's article is concerning the name question. I don't think anybody is saying that is the crux of the problem yet Coulter devotes 7 out of 14 paragraphs to that one topic. The gay angle gets another 3 out of 14, leaving 4 paragraphs for the more substantive concerns. Of course she spends 1 paragraph as intro alone and spends most of the other 3 paragraphs not seriously analyzing the problem but throwing ad homs and zingers around.

She very much downplays the FACT that Gannon was getting day passes into the White House even before Talon News existed. Then, when Talon News was created, a brand new Internet news service, Gannon had no trouble getting a pass.

Coulter also ignores that Gannon, as a journalist, copied administration releases verbatim without attribution.

Also, in the end she flat out lied about Gannon never writing about homosexuality.

Typical Coulter column.

Lurker

 

[kimiko]

So let me make sure I'm clear on this. Any gay republican is worthy of redicule and his sexual orientation is an issue because of hypocricy in the Republican party? Are you serious?

Not ridicule, but pointing it out is fair game. Sexual orientation whenever they write about relevant topics, or when there seems to be favoritism.

 

[RandFan]

The issue of the Bush Admin creating pseudo-news through fakery and fraud is the real issue here.

You are right, it is a very real issue. I have conceded that already. You are wrong however in stating that it is a realy issue "here". I tried to make it clear that I wanted to just address these issues. Two wrongs don't make a right and if focusing on Gannon's sexuality is wrong (not certain yet) then the severity of the behavior by the Bush Admin doesn't obviate that wrong.

 

[RandFan]

Not ridicule, but pointing it out is fair game.

I'm not getting your point. Are you saying that the sexuality of Gay Republicans is always appropriate fodder? Should a gay republican be excluded from the white house? Should gay reporters who are gay be denied access to the president?

Sexual orientation whenever they write about relevant topics, or when there seems to be favoritism.

Apparently Gannon is gay. He is also a Republican. Some have argued that he has written anti-gay material. If true then his work is absolutely subject to criticism and the facts should be called to attention.

Do you believe that making an issue of a Gay Republican's sexuality is always appropriate? Do you believe that "Gay Republican" is an oxymoron?

 

[RussDill]

Re: Re: Jeff Gannon Part 2

Is running a prostitution ring legal where he did it? If no, then how did he pass the background check? If yes, then it probably isn't relevant.

Its an escort service, while technically, its just renting someone to go out with you to events, prostitution is easy to fit in there, like massage parlors. Just because someone is an escort, doesn't mean they have sex for money, but its a good bet.

 

[RussDill]

Re: Re: Jeff Gannon Part 2

The fact that he is gay has to do with Republican hypocrisy, not Democratic bigotry. Republicans push amending the Constitution to specifically discriminate against gays and a large group of their constituents are morally opposed to them. So to have a gay man as their stooge is hypocritical. I have seen Democrats saying it isn't relevant, and repeating it as if there is something wrong about it is damaging, and I agree. The other part of that is that he was a prostitute, which again is antithetical to the values of a considerable number of Republicans.

The main problem with gay marraige is that the state has its hand in church affairs. Marrage is viewed by most as a religion sanctioned affair with legal documents. This needs to change. Churches should do marraiges, the state should do legal unions.

 

[Ladewig]

As for the name change thing. I consider people complaining about Gannon's name as pinheaded as the woo-woo's who complain that James Randi changed his name.

As for the gay thing: I have not come across any websites that complain about Gannon being gay as a reason why he should not have had White House access. If anyone knows of any liberal site that holds that position, please provide a link. Until then, Coulter's charge that "Gannon's only offense is that he may be gay," shall stand as a strawman.

Coulter's overlooking Gannon's criminal activity seems a bit ingenuous.

 

[RandFan]

Yep, I was right. A majority of Coulter's article is concerning the name question.

And this is an issue because?

I don't think anybody is saying that is the crux of the problem yet Coulter devotes 7 out of 14 paragraphs to that one topic.

It is mentioned constantly. I watched Bill Maher last night as he interviewed Leslie Stahl and he made a big deal of it.

The gay angle gets another 3 out of 14, leaving 4 paragraphs for the more substantive concerns.

Substantive according to who?

Of course she spends 1 paragraph as intro alone and spends most of the other 3 paragraphs not seriously analyzing the problem but throwing ad homs and zingers around.

Agreed.

 

[Ladewig]

Re: Re: Re: Jeff Gannon Part 2

Its an escort service, while technically, its just renting someone to go out with you to events, prostitution is easy to fit in there, like massage parlors. Just because someone is an escort, doesn't mean they have sex for money, but its a good bet.

Well, he did include naked pictures of himself and measurements describing his penis.

 

[Furious]

Re: Re: Re: Jeff Gannon Part 2

So let me make sure I'm clear on this. Any gay republican is worthy of redicule and his sexual orientation is an issue because of hypocricy in the Republican party? Are you serious?

Nah, its just that when you create a shill for your party (which is the relevant issue, whether it turns out to be true or not), it is best not to have someone who's sexual orientation was a significant reason for a bunch of your party's election day victories.

The name thing wouldn't be a big deal at all either if it didn't appear that Jeff had something to hide. The people Ann listed clearly changed their names for marketing or privacy reasons. That isn't as obvious in Jeff's case, because he was a nobody before this story came out. Jeff might have been (I believe probably) legitimately doing the same as the others, but since it appears he had something to hide, it has that air of someone trying to run away from his past by changing his name.

Neither are truly relevant to the alleged crime in question, but it does liven up the story a bit and sell newspapers. Yeah, if this were a court case it wouldn't be relevant, but then when has the court of public opinion ever been fair?

To flip your question around, why should Jeff get a break from the usual smear?

 

[crimresearch]

I didn't add any smileys to my first post in this thread for a reason...


I haven't followed it closely, but I have gotten a clear impression that this story can't be reported without mentioning the gayness, or the gay prostitution of Jeff Gannon.

The addition of ' being gay as a reason why he should not have had White House access' seems like moving the goal posts....the media is clearly making much of his sexual orientation.

White House access is beside the point, until (as the article Corplinx cites mentioned) someone points out why only elite reporters should have a voice.

ETA: I agree that the relevant issue is having a shill posing as an objective reporter.

SO....was he? Did he? Did anyone else? Did everyone else?