Jeff Gannon, Extremely Exposed
The sad thing for me is the sense of weariness with which everybody's greeting yet another info-swindle from the right. Another sad thing for me what boobs the left are in terms of how they deal with getting their message out. I don't think they're necessarily more honest; perhaps just less crafty; and perhaps just too unclear on what, exactly, their message is. (And then there are the libertarians, who have a clearer message but don't get it out very much at all.) Americablog dissects the Gannon scandal, complete with gay hooker photos:
So in the end, why does this matter? Why does it matter that Jeff Gannon may have been a gay hooker named James Guckert with a $20,000 defaulted court judgment against him? So he somehow got a job lobbing softball questions to the White House. Big deal. If he was already a prostitute, why not be one in the White House briefing room as well?This is the Conservative Republican Bush White House we're talking about. It's looking increasingly like they made a decision to allow a hooker to ask the President of the United States questions. They made a decision to give a man with an alias and no journalistic experience access to the West Wing of the White House on a "daily basis." They reportedly made a decision to give him - one of only six - access to documents, or information in those documents, that exposed a clandestine CIA operative. Say what you will about Monika Lewinsky - a tasteless episode, "inappropriate," whatever. Monika wasn't a gay prostitute running around the West Wing. What kind of leadership would let prostitutes roam the halls of the West Wing? What kind of war-time leadership can't find the same information that took bloggers only days to find?
None of this is by accident.
Someone had to make a decision to let all this happen. Who? Someone committed a crime in exposing Valerie Plame and now it appears a gay hooker may be right in the middle of all of it? Who?
Ultimately, it is the hypocrisy that is such a challenge to grasp in this story. This is the same White House that ran for office on a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. While they are surrounded by gay hookers? While they use a gay hooker to write articles for their gay hating political base? While they use a gay hooker to destroy a political enemy? Not to mention the hypocrisy of a "reporter" who chooses to publish article after article defending the ant-gay religious-right point of view on gay civil rights issue.
You're right, Amy. The Dems are a lot less crafty than the Bushies, which is why this story isn't getting more play. Still, lines like this give me the creeps:
"What kind of leadership would let prostitutes roam the halls of the West Wing?"
As though the halls of West Wing were some kind of sacred, holy place. As though prostitutes were nothing but dirt.
Lena Cuisina, Sex Criminal at February 15, 2005 7:46 AM
Besides which, I'd imagine Gannon (or whatever his name is) was wearing a business suit. Now if he'd shown up looking like Tom of Finland...
Jim Treacher at February 15, 2005 9:06 AM
Point taken and all but -
> Dems are a lot less crafty than the
> Bushies
In a backhanded way, are you saying that Bush isn't stupid?
> to give a man with an alias and no
> journalistic experience
Since when does jounalistic experience count for anything?
Kaus links to this, with many nuanced views:
- http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2005/02/know_why_did_th.html
Cridland at February 15, 2005 10:04 AM
Comment on Treacher blog: "I never would have thought I'd see the day the left started complaining about gay prostitutes in the White House. What will tomorrow bring?"
Cridland at February 15, 2005 10:06 AM
I missed ya Crid. Welcome back.
eric at February 15, 2005 10:40 AM
Good point, Lena, about the prostitutes. Prostitution is an honest living -- an exchange of money for services rendered. I don't have a problem with it.
Amy Alkon at February 15, 2005 12:55 PM
I don't have a problem with prostitution in theory, and feel it should be decriminalized. However, it IS currently against the law in Washington, D.C., and therefor could lead to unethical behavior on the part of any White House staffer who may have an illicit relationship with Mr. Gannon.
Which brings up the reverse question -- just how did a male prostitute get an undeserved press pass? If it turns out to be through his illicit connection to a White House staffer, that's worth knowing about.
Then, of course, there's the whole "family values" hypocrisy of the current administration that this story underscores.
Frank at February 15, 2005 3:50 PM
Indeed. While I don't have a problem with prostitution, I'm sure every member of the current administration will profess to have one.
Amy Alkon at February 15, 2005 4:02 PM
To be fair, I'd imagine they didn't know the real story on Gannon. But I worked as an intern at UPI back in 1983, with Helen Thomas in the White House, for part of the time, and even then, they had to run some sort of background check on me.
Amy Alkon at February 15, 2005 4:04 PM
If they didn't run a background check on Gannon, that would almost be a bigger scandal. No, if a buncha bloggers could uncover this story, I'd bet dollars to donuts that someone in the administration knew what Guckert was up to, and pulled strings to get him those daily press passes.
Check this out for
background on why the fact that Gannon/Guckert was a male prostitute may be extraordinarily relevant.
Frank at February 15, 2005 4:26 PM
Frank, cantcha show a little leg and just put it in a sentence?
It's hard to care about Gannon anymore than one cares for Eason Jordan, except that, y'know, Jordan's lies to the media-consuming public were systemic, abject, continuing, and a horrific violation of all that sane and decent people hold dear. Also, he had sex with Marianne Pearl and Sharon Stone both in the same calendar year, despite being younger than I am. Fucker.
Amy, I bet you'd have a problem with prostitution if Hugh Grant were getting blown in a car parked in front of your house.
Hi Eric.
Cridland at February 15, 2005 8:46 PM
I sure wouldn't. I'd be making a mint selling the photo to the National Enquirer.
If prostitution were legal, prostitutes could work out of storefronts. Well, they already do -- they just get raided by the cops from time to time.
My feeling? It's your body, sell it if you want to.
Amy Alkon at February 15, 2005 8:56 PM
"In a backhanded way, are you saying that Bush isn't stupid?"
Crid, you are so incredibly kind to that guy. And, no, I don't think he's stupid. I just disagree with him on everything.
Frank, why or how would having any kind of relationship with a prostitute "lead to unethical behavior"? Even though it's illegal, paying for sex seems like a pretty straightforward deal that doesn't necessarily lead to anything else -- except maybe another roll in the hay or blowjob in the oval office, if it was really good fun. Surely sex isn't the only way to get an undeserved press pass into the White House.
Haven't you ever been a little generous with someone because he or she was good to you sexually? Is it so difficult to imagine an genuine affective bond between a prostitute and a client that isn't degraded by the simple exchange of money or other form of payment?
The real importance of this story is precisely in "the whole 'family values' hypocrisy" that you pointed out as an aside. I'm still optimistic that someday we'll all grow up about the fact that we have dicks and pussies and a fondness for squishing and bumping them together.
Lena Cuisina is not a prostitute: She gives blowjobs for free to cute guys all the time! at February 15, 2005 9:07 PM
Hi -
"What kind of leadership would let prostitutes roam the halls of the West Wing?"
Remind me once again, please, of just what differentiates prostitutes from politicians.
L'Amerloque
L'Amerloque at February 16, 2005 7:49 AM
They're open and honest about the fact that they're screwing people. The prostitutes, I mean.
Amy Alkon at February 16, 2005 8:25 AM
Lena,
At its most extreme end, illegaly engaging the services of a prostitute could compromise a White House staffer by opening him or her up to being coerced or blackmailed into compromising national or White House security by giving, say, undeserved access to press briefing rooms, CIA documents, etc.
The bigger issue for me is that I believe the White House knew some or all of Gannon's background - most notably that he wasn't a real journalist - but conciously employed him as a shill in order to derail the vital function that an independent fourth estate performs in this country. That's damn close to treasonous in my book.
As I said, I have no problem with prostitution in theory, though the way it's implemented in most of this country is problematic. It's not entirely a "victimless crime" currently, but it would be a much better deal all around if it were legalized and closely regulated.
And no, I've never been additionally generous with someone because of their sexual performance. Unless, of course, she swallowed.
Frank at February 16, 2005 10:28 AM
But I swallow for free, Frank! You don't need prostitutes!
Lena at February 16, 2005 10:16 PM
megafds
rodjsdat2 at April 9, 2007 8:11 AM
m674k
ro853ck at July 17, 2007 8:54 PM
m715k
ro527ck at July 17, 2007 9:30 PM
m828k
ro1000ck at July 18, 2007 4:54 AM
c808t
t223t at December 21, 2007 10:57 AM
c839t sprint ringtone free - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sprint-Ringtone-Free-en movie theme ringtones - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Movie-Theme-Ringtones-en
ma994zda at March 26, 2008 4:59 PM
Leave a comment