They've Gone From "Speaking In Tongues" to "Cat's Got Their Tongues"
"Why have the 'traditional family values' folks erected a wall of silence around the Gannon scandal?" asks Bill Berkowitz. Indeed - why is it that they are loathe to condemn their own when sex scandals occur in their domain? Geez, it happens often enough. He also asks, what would have happened if the tables were turned and this was discovered during the Clinton administration? I suppose millions of dollars would have been spent investigating it, no doubt, and it would have been the topic of conversation on the Rush O'Hannity network forever.
Well, never fear, Bill. Here's a site that defends Gannon/Guckert (or as I like to call him, GiGi). It's not all that easy to find a someone willing to defend the fraudulent, hypocritical shill whose smug confidence as a White House lapdog got the better of him.
There are other sites out there defending GiGi, if you want to look hard enough to find them. Funny, they suddenly find themselves defending the sort of behavior they condemn so heartily in others (H). They even resort to lies to do so, stating in one article that GiGi was the "one" person caught playing for the Bush Leagues, when in fact it is just another example (the fifth? it's hard to keep track) of the Bush regimes' corruption of the media. Of course, they still remind us as often as they can that they are victims of the "Liberal Media"... a conspiracy theory that loses its luster every time another one of the neocons' machinations are exposed.
ManDate Update 1: GiGi's back online, at his own site. He defends himself by playing the victim - the left is out to get him because he is from the right. Well, that's not the issue. No one expects news conferences to be free of biased reporters. The issues are that he was exposed as a fraud, and that the republicans appear to be complicit in that fraud, and that they ally themselves with a purveyor of gay porn while winning votes from the "moral values" voters by condemning what they call the "gay lifestyle". Maybe they feel they are representing their constituents by opposing gay marriage but supporting gay porn. Maybe they should have mentioned that on the campaign trail. Maybe one of their planted shill questioners at one of their loyalty-oath-sanctioned campaign stops should have asked, "Mr. President, I run a gay prostitution and porn website, and perform my other professional duties under an assumed name. How do I know I will not be 'brought down' by left-wing wackos if this is discovered?"
ManDate Update 2: Every president has sought to manipulate the media. But historians say that Bush, unhappy with what he calls "the filter," is courting controversy in his quest for innovative formats. Several conservative commentators have been paid to trumpet Bush policies in their work; one recipient, Armstrong Williams, is being investigated by the Federal Communications Commission. And two agencies have disseminated pro-Bush videos that look like TV newscasts, without disclosing the Bush sponsorship - a breach of federal law, according to the Government Accountability Office.
Well, never fear, Bill. Here's a site that defends Gannon/Guckert (or as I like to call him, GiGi). It's not all that easy to find a someone willing to defend the fraudulent, hypocritical shill whose smug confidence as a White House lapdog got the better of him.
There are other sites out there defending GiGi, if you want to look hard enough to find them. Funny, they suddenly find themselves defending the sort of behavior they condemn so heartily in others (H). They even resort to lies to do so, stating in one article that GiGi was the "one" person caught playing for the Bush Leagues, when in fact it is just another example (the fifth? it's hard to keep track) of the Bush regimes' corruption of the media. Of course, they still remind us as often as they can that they are victims of the "Liberal Media"... a conspiracy theory that loses its luster every time another one of the neocons' machinations are exposed.
ManDate Update 1: GiGi's back online, at his own site. He defends himself by playing the victim - the left is out to get him because he is from the right. Well, that's not the issue. No one expects news conferences to be free of biased reporters. The issues are that he was exposed as a fraud, and that the republicans appear to be complicit in that fraud, and that they ally themselves with a purveyor of gay porn while winning votes from the "moral values" voters by condemning what they call the "gay lifestyle". Maybe they feel they are representing their constituents by opposing gay marriage but supporting gay porn. Maybe they should have mentioned that on the campaign trail. Maybe one of their planted shill questioners at one of their loyalty-oath-sanctioned campaign stops should have asked, "Mr. President, I run a gay prostitution and porn website, and perform my other professional duties under an assumed name. How do I know I will not be 'brought down' by left-wing wackos if this is discovered?"
ManDate Update 2: Every president has sought to manipulate the media. But historians say that Bush, unhappy with what he calls "the filter," is courting controversy in his quest for innovative formats. Several conservative commentators have been paid to trumpet Bush policies in their work; one recipient, Armstrong Williams, is being investigated by the Federal Communications Commission. And two agencies have disseminated pro-Bush videos that look like TV newscasts, without disclosing the Bush sponsorship - a breach of federal law, according to the Government Accountability Office.
posted by SheaNC at 2:33 AM
8 Comments:
I think the way the left has attacked Gannon is shameful. I have read David Corn's commentary on this in The Nation and he looked pretty hard and could not find any real evidence of "hypocracy" on the gay issue. Gannon never really wrote anything anti-gay. Being gay does not mean that someone is anti-war and for big government. There are many gay people who do not like the welfare state and are very pro-war. Also, just because someone is opposed to legalized gay marriage does not mean they hate gays. Liberals have the wrong impression of middle red state America. It was evident when Kerry thought that pointing out Cheney's daughter's sexualilty would get him votes from Christians. I know there are some extremist who hate gay people but those are not the same people supporting Gannon. The people who support Gannon are people like me who welcome anyone who supports limited government and a strong defense. A lot of these people are also bloggers who are glad that a blogger could get a day pass to press conferences. Whatever this guy does in his personal life is his own business. I feel sorry for the guy because he had to have been hurt by all of this.
How many other members of the press corp have reprinted White House press sessions verbatim and advertised themselves as escorts? If anyone found out the same about Maureen Dowd I'm sure conservatives would be demanding her head.
How can you ignore the security issue? Why would he be exempt from the background checks other members of the press corp are subject to?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Glen Dean, it's not the fact that he is gay, it's the fact that he is a fraud. And yes, there are extremists who hate gays supporting Gannon, reversing themselves because he is on their side. And if you oppose allowing Gays to marry, then you are not in favor of "limited government" - you are in favor of the government telling people who can marry, which should be no one else's business, and you also support government enforcing religious mores on citizens against their will... the christian taliban.
Here is a good rebuttal to David Corn's article:
http://propagannon.blogspot.com/2005/02/response-to-david-corn.html
You can always check out news about what has been going on in Placerville, CA - a hate campaign against gays that rivals the Jim Crow south or early Nazi propaganda - carried out by "christians".
What I am saying is that there may be some gay people who oppose banning gay marriage but on the whole agree much more with Republicans than they do with Democrats. I don't know what you call an extremest. Are Matt Drudge and the people at the Weekly Standard extremists? I am sure that there are a few people who hate gays while calling themselves Christian, but that is not the norm. You can't take a small sample and say that that represents everyone. That is not fair and it isn't logical. As far as gay marriage is concerned, most people would agree that the states should be allowed to decide whatever they want to. The only problem is with the "full faith and credit clause" of the constitution which most think would cause the courts to effectively make all states recognize marriages in Massachusets. You keep talking about how Chrstians wanting to enforce their will on the people but is not all "law" based in Mosaic Law. You could say that all laws are an example of someone else trying to impose their values on others.
Well, the extremists I was referring to are some that I couldn't offer a link to, unfortunately: one was a blogger whose "defense of gannon" posts seem to have disappeared, other bloggers I didn't bother to catalog, and others are folks who post messages to usenet newsgroups... the alternate universe of blogdom.
While it does sound as if I am assigning extremists' opinions to the whole right, I was referring to policy or attempts to create policy, although I failed to mention that when I refer to "republicans" I am thinking of the party and its political leadership, rather than the consituents. So, I do tend to cloud the issue there, so I should be more careful.
I have never said that christians hate gays, but it is no secret that just about every christian denomination condemns what they call the "gay lifestyle." I believe that if one attaches one's self to a religion, then one endorses that religion's position on moral issues, or else that religion's whole moral dogma becomes subjective (to man) rather than absolute (by God).
I don't believe all law is based on Mosaic law. Laws like that exist outside judeo-christianity (as in cultures never exposed to Mosaic law), and, I believe, always have, including before "Moses."
All laws may be an example of one person's imposition of their values upon someone else. Majority rule usually wins out, but that doesn't mean the rule is right. I think the litmus test for inappropriate imposition of values upon others is when those rules are against actions which hurt no one. Killing, stealing, violence, etc., are examples of defensive rules which we enact to protect ourselves. Telling two consenting adults that they cannot marry is an example of inappropriate government intrusion into people's private lives... there's no reason to pass a law against it except to enforce some religious mores.
Opposing the Gay Marriage Amendment on the basis that it is too much government is a good reason to oppose it. My fear of big govt. is mostly a federal thing. I think states should be allowed to decide cases like this and abortion on there own. As far as religions opposing homosexuality, remember that they also oppose sex before marriage, adultery, and a lot of other things. Catholics and Protestant didn't just get together recently and decide that homosexuality was a sin. That belief is rooted in scripture and since Christians do not consider themselves "under Levitical Law" they usually reference statements made by the Apostle Paul in the New Testament. I don't know how we ended up here, but getting back to Gannon, I feel sorry for the guy and I admire him for fighting back and not hiding under a rock in shame.
I would feel sorry for him if his private life had been dragged into the public. Lots of people are saying his privacy has been invaded. But I say when you post nude pictures of yourself on an internet porn site, you've gone public :)
Post a Comment
<< Home